[UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emojiin Domain

[Andrew Sullivan]

If only it were actually a response, instead of a post saying, "Neener, neener, emojis are cool, there's no problem. Well, maybe we need a whitelist or something."

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On May 29, 2017, at 21:07, Satish Babu <sb at inapp.com> wrote:
> 
> In case you haven't seen this response to the SSAC Advisory:
> 
> https://medium.com/@Emoji_Domains/ssac-response-d8d2ad6e800c (also available at  I❤️ICANN.ws).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satish
> 
> 
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Stuart Stuple via UA-discuss <ua-discuss at icann.org> wrote:
>> Thought I had. <grin>
>> 
>> I continue to believe - despite the excellent clarity of opinions presented - that emoji should be considered approprIate for indentifiers. I don't see any of the points raised in the article as compelling. 
>> 
>> But I am completely willing to accept that is my ignorance.  
>> 
>> -Stuart
>> 
>> The smaller keyboard and use of voice recognition may increase my incoherence. Apologies. Feel free to ask for clarification of my word choices. 
>> 
>> Get Outlook for iOS
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:18 PM -0700, "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 5/29/2017 9:12 AM, Stuart Stuple via UA-discuss wrote:
>>>> I understand the perspective that emoji are more variable than text as the emotional impact of the variations of emoji. 
>>> The "emo" in "emoji" has absolutely nothing to do with the word (or the concept of) "emotion".
>>> 
>>> This was rather cleanly summarized in the SSAC paper, which immediately leads to the question of whether anyone in this discussion has read more than the headline on that paper....
>>> 
>>> A./
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170529/e5005f1d/attachment.html>