[Latingp] Missing In-Script Cases
meikal at mumin.de
Wed Oct 30 17:00:00 UTC 2019
I don’t see any issue in putting this on-hold until after having a meeting with IP, but I also believe that IP has misunderstood some of the analysis based on a quick look at their response, and our analysis and views should be independent of IPs.
So even if we hold this off for now, we should continue with a unified and coherent approach to the variant analysis and modify it only where we see a need, instead of arbitrarily omitting individual cases.
Let IP judge on the final product featuring all of our own evidence and rationale for each actual variant case instead of speculating and discarding cases without having a clear understanding of the situation. Currently this simply remains unfinished.
Am 30. Okt. 2019, 14:50 +0100 schrieb Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland at knipp.de>:
> Hi all,
> On 30.10.2019 14:37, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp wrote:
> > Should we put this on-hold in light of IP’s preliminary feedback and
> > pending comments from our meeting with them next week?
> I agree with Dennis. We should discuss this with IP and then internally
> first before continuing.
> See you next week,
> | |
> | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
> ------- Technologiepark
> Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
> 44227 Dortmund
> Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0
> Fax: +49 231 9703-200
> Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
> Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
> Register Court:
> Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
> Chief Executive Officers:
> Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
> Latingp mailing list
> Latingp at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Latingp