Re: [registrars] IDN Representative
> Understood. I think Ross put it well:
Actually, I put it badly...
> > registry/registrar technologies. The difference is slight, but I
> > believe that the former approach will allow the GNSO to progressively
I meant to say "latter approach" :)
"...the current generation of users and system designers has grown up
hobbled by implicit assumptions that frustrate simplicity. The real essence
of the Internet is simplicity. We must be aware of the implicit assumptions
that are subverting this simplicity so we can start removing the perverse
interactions." - Bob Frankston
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmon Chung" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] IDN Representative
> Hi Tim,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Ruiz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Your two comments above have me concerned, and seem to conflict. I don't
> > believe the current installed base of ad hoc IDN implementations should
> > the consideration you imply.
> As I have said in my previous message to Ross. I would not consider ad
> IDN implementations or testbeds as "installed base". I am more concerned
> about the production systems around the world as well as the installed
> of existing DNS applications.
> > Please keep in mind that first an foremost you
> > represent registrars as a whole, not just those who have attempted their
> > versions of an IDN implementation.