consensus Call: TATWEEL
mark at macchiato.com
Mon Mar 30 20:25:21 CEST 2009
That's perfectly reasonable; I just wanted to bring this information to the
working group, given that the LTRU working group was faced with a similar
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 21:48, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> what ever speculation there may be, my policy is not to take an adverse
> action unless a particular email address becomes a source of disruption that
> interferes with progress, wastes people's time, moves the discussion into
> unhelpful channels. So far, LB has not said anything that would merit such
> an action in my view. If that changes, I will consider the same action I
> have taken with Mr. Morfin.
> Vint Cerf
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> vint at google.com
> On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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)
>> > OTHER: <explain what you propose>
>> Each TLD Manager to decide.
>> > I will tally the responses arriving by April 4, midnight, EDT.
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update