Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private Use Tags

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <rd at afrac.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private Use Tags
>
> At 22:28 09/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >Hi -
> > > From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
> > > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:00 PM
> > > Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private
> > Use Tags
> > >
> >
> > > In the interest of achieving consensus, I won't argue further about the
> > > exact wording of this section.  I do insist that private-use tags and
> > > subtags in "x-" not be removed from the grammar, or proscribed entirely.
> > > It MUST be legal for consenting adults to generate and interpret
> > > "x-this" and "en-x-that" in the privacy of their homes.
> >...
> >
> >I think we're all agreed on that.  Based on the discussion, I'll leave it to
> >the editors to pick appropriate words to reflect our rough consensus that
> >private use tags and subtags should remain in the document, but there should
> >be a "health warning" regarding the risks associated with using them.  Several
> >alternative wordings have been offered, and I think the feedback on the
> >mailing
> >list will provide sufficient guidance to the editors to form text we can live
> >with.
>
> I am obliged to come back on this. If the editors are to form a text we can
> live with, I think we also could. And if cannot, we should make clear in a
> note, or through a consensus of this group, that it has never been
> considered that "x-" tags could ever have to do with pornography (or
> exclusion as some of comments I received during the ICANN meeting).
>
> >With that, I'll mark this issue resolved.  If someone finds the words they
> >choose unacceptable, we can re-open the issue.
>
> I reopen the issue, not necessarily on the text itself but about the
> guidance given to the editor.
> jfc

If you really believe issue #1061 needs to be re-opened,
please identify the specific text in the draft you object to and
the text you would propose in its place.

Randy, ltru co-chair




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru