consensus Call: TATWEEL

[Vint Cerf]

Thank you mark

________________________________

From: mark.edward.davis at gmail.com 
To: Vint Cerf 
Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no 
Sent: Sun Mar 29 17:57:24 2009
Subject: Re: consensus Call: TATWEEL 


Vint, I want to relay to you a relevant message on the topic of LB vs Morfin.

Mark


On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> wrote:
Hi -

My co-chair Martin Duerst and I, and the three independent ltru working
group participants we asked (as well as some we didn't ask), are
convinced that "LB" is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.  In consultation
with Chris Newman, the responsible area director, we set the
"moderated" bit for that subscriber address on the working group
mailing list. If "LB" believes we have acted inappropriately, "LB" is
free to follow the appeal process described in section 6.5  of RFC 2026.

However, the vocabulary, style, content, and peculiar world-view of
this latest missive leave me more convinced than ever that "LB"
is indeed JFC Morphin, and that under the terms of RFC 3683
we are well justified in suspending the posting privileges for that
address.

Randy
ltru co-chair



On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 17:36, LB <lbleriot at gmail.com> wrote:


	2009/3/22 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>:
	
	> Based on the on-line exchanges, it appears to me that the general
	> consensus is to ban TATWEEL by exception (ie. make it DISALLOWED).
	>
	> Please respond with:
	>
	> YES (ie make it DISALLOWED)
	>
	> NO (ie leave it PVALID)
	
	
	NO.
	

	> OTHER: <explain what you propose>
	
	
	Each TLD Manager to decide.
	

	> I will tally the responses arriving by April 4, midnight, EDT.
	
	
	--
	LB
	
	_______________________________________________
	Idna-update mailing list
	Idna-update at alvestrand.no
	http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
	


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090329/e145811e/attachment.htm