[DNSOP] Issue 22, unfairness (was: WGLC: "Considerations . . .)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come back to this.  I have had a
hard time coming up with a proposed alteration that addresses exactly
your point.

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 05:18:27PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:

> A. it's unfair.  If this is based on the spirit of "reciprocity"
>    (referring to Bill), which I'd respect, IMO it should be a fair
>    deal.  It's not very fair to me to request someone to do something
>    while just encouraging others to think about it (even if
>    carefully).  And, as I mentioned in the previous message, I'm
>    not just ethically complaining about it; I'm afraid the unbalanced
>    fairness will worsen poor interoperability.

If I understand this and your other messages correctly, one of the
most irritating parts of the current text is this, in section 4.4:

  Site administrators are encouraged to think carefully before
  adopting any test®‰žÊ)n‹§që"z×è®(œ
kÛÍxçÎ}ÛM<Eën®sÚ¶g²Š[¢éÜzȞµú+s«Š§jTèv{(¥ªÜ†+Þ¢›bšë"z×è®Þ–+Þ­çS¢'­}ªÜ…Ù좖«r¯yÊ+{v¦²W(™œz+Þuúè™Ê+{v¦²W(šZjXh²ÝvïM5o'(­íښÉ\¢cè²×âÇ­„DŒLøã®×p:@¢}¼šöÓO5ãŸ9÷NôÐðÓ\êâ‚)ڕ:žÊ)rŠÞÝ©¬•Ê&
éb½êÞu:žÊ)rŠÞÝ©¬•Ê&EçŠ÷~º&–‡–,¶ZjXh²ÝvïM5o'(­íښÉ\¢cè²×âÇ­„DŒLøë …p:^¢·g²Š\¢··jk%r‰Œ¢}¼šöÓO5ãŸ9óNôÐðÓ]X«ºÄœjyÞu©š¾+ìµ©¬•Ê&]*Z˜YZ€Ó—J–¦IÊ+{M¸ét©jbÞ½éWJ–¦JÖ­ºÃh±Ê+{M¸êÖ çZn‹Þ÷ßkz«¢­ç