Subject: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:12:13 -0800

I have changed companies, and my IBM email address is no longer valid. 
Please change the email address listed for me in 
draft-ietf-ltru-registry to:

[email-masked]

Thanks,

Mark Davis

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:31:31 -0800

I'll put it on our very short AUTH48 list (three items: the zh-Hant typo and our two email addresses).

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Mark Davis
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:12 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; Addison Phillips
> Subject: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author
>

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:32:04 -0500

> From: Mark Davis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:12 AM
> To: [email-masked]

You can make this change when the document enters the auth48 state.  The
Secretariat (the entity behind the ietf-action email address) generally
can't edit documents once they've been passed to the RFC Editor.

Of course, the problem here is that the RFC Editor uses the email addresses
listed in the document to let you know when the auth48 state is entered.
Catch-22.  I've bcc'd the RFC Editor; maybe they can update their working
copy.

-Scott-

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:17:00 +0100

At 17:12 06/02/2006, Mark Davis wrote:
>I have changed companies, and my IBM email address is no longer 
>valid. Please change the email address listed for me in 

Congrats too!

Thanks to you and Addison I won a bottle of Champaign. My bet that 
authors would join Google and Yahoo! before the RFC was published. (I 
have another one that Services providers would significantly enter 
the Unicode list of Directors and Officers, replacing some Solutions 
proiders - however what is Google now?).

The IAB response gives me the "no red" light for the ethic/users 
inputs TF I proposed. I engaged already the project, but it will take 
time to present and discuss a Draft Charter, see how it correctly 
intefaces the Internet standard process, gather competences, develop 
the associated tools. I doubt this project can be of any help for the 
RFC 3066 Bis final review. May be that now Addison and you are in a 
Service company directly interested by the legal aspects - like those 
I rose in my IESG appeal - could you dialog with your legal 
deparments over these issues and make the WG-LTRU benefit from their 
inputs? International lawyers having expertise in that area are only 
a few and they cost a lot, so we can only call on colleagues and Members.

Would the IESG not ask the WG-LTRU to correct the RFC 3066 bis as I 
suggest it, I will appeal the IAB. This should give you time enough 
to come-up with a solution to protect search engines from being 
legally blocked, at least in EU - may be the reason why some do not 
think necessary to have "EU" in the language tags registry?

I am overloaded right now, so I am afraid I cannot look into the 
current draft before the LC as I wished. My advise is to really make 
it read - in the RFC 3066 Bis context - by European, Israeli, 
Argentinian lawyers, asking about the privacy and anti-racism laws 
and explaining them what is the RMS (retro-meta-spam).

Cheers.
jfc

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:08:14 +0900

[both as a chair and as an individual]

At 20:17 06/02/08, r&d afrac wrote:

 > RMS (retro-meta-spam).

Not sure whether this is related to our work or not, but could
you please explain this acronym/term here? If applicable, please
mark your mail as off-topic. If there is a good explanation already
somewhere, a pointer may be good enough.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:41:05 +0100

>somewhere, a pointer may be good enough.

I am obviously surprised by this question from WG-ltru co-Chair:
http://ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/jefsey-morfin-appeal.txt
jfc

PS. I indicated a few months ago on the IETF list that I started 
working on the issue. A few people were interested to share. However 
due to a competition's DoS against me, you may have heard of, I had 
to set priorities. We carried the analysis in French more serenely, 
to the benefit of those who can actually protect the users and make 
it illegal in France and in Europe. The intent is to bring the issue 
at the IGF: we will be able to work in French too and to get it then 
translated for regional use. I hope that this mass profiling tool 
will be outlawed some day. This obviousy affects the economy of the 
currently discussed filtering Draft by Google and Yahoo! experts.