You can probably blame my vacation as well as process defaults for some
confusion... I was already in Canada last week when we had the telechat
where the IESG approved sending out the 1-line diff proposed for the
charter, and I didn't take the time or stretch the process so that the
charter
At 3:17 PM -0400 8/19/09, Vint Cerf wrote:
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
Fully agree. But I think you misread Thomas' message. He asked for clarity on
Thomas,
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
The notion of including a non-normative mapping document was very late
in the process and the charter just
Looking at this recharter, the immediate question I had was what has
actually changed in the charter? so I can figure out if I care.
I gather there is one very small change. But you'd have to be a WG
insider to know this.
Also, reading through the charter, it reads like it was written a year
and
Vint,
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
I will certainly defer to the chairs and ADs in this particular
case.
My bigger concern is the meta issue of
A modified charter has been submitted for the Internationalized Domain
Names in Applications, Revised (idnabis) working group in the Applications
Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The
modified charter is provided below for informational purposes only.
Please send
