> I remind you that the difference between the timeline you suggested and the > timeline I suggested is about six months, and one of the consequences your > schedule is the chance that when the greatest effort is made, it will be "too > late".
Yes, and that is still a discussion on another thread in the wg on that topic so follow up there. But so far, my take is that there are more people who wants IDN WG to produce some work so we can move on to discuss other issues than people who wants IDN WG to slow down. I may be wrong so lets wait for that discussion to complete. > There are lots of people I wouldn't "stall the process" for (your words, not > mine), some vendors come to mind. The JET membership is not among them, not > in my mind, as they are ccTLD NICs, with a "duty to serve the community" [1]. My note is fairly simple reminder to all that the WG proceed on drafts in its core interest. We should focus our discussion on the core interest. Unpublished drafts or promised draft (be it 2 weeks or 2 months) are not part of core interest and there should not be foul call when the wg proceed without them. I recieve private mails regularly that he/she is going to send in a draft for review but eventually never made the group at all, some as long as 18 months ago. Therefore, I am not referring to anyone in particular. -James Seng
