Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 11:36 AM -0400 4/28/01, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>While I don't disagree (or agree) with any proposed course of action
>(yet), I missed the controlling issue which requires a working group
>process event, e.g., a decision, on or before a date, e.g., Tuesday.

We need a deadline to decide how the WG is going to move forwards.

WALID has had plenty of time to consider its options. At the 
Minneapolis meeting, folks from WALID agreed to dates that seemed 
reasonable to all, but then missed them without comment. In WALID's 
latest letter, they say the require more time, but do not say why, 
nor do they say why they missed the previously-agreed to deadlines, 
nor do they say what value the WG would get from giving them more 
time.

Without some information about why WALID needs more time, I think the 
WG should go ahead on its schedule. If the WG decides not to go with 
IDNA because of the WALID patent and their claims about it, the WG 
needs time to think about which alternative it wants to persue, if 
any. Letting WALID control that debate seems silly.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium