[cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
wrote:

> “*** Given that ISO-3166 is actively maintained - thus your recollection
> is, unfortunately, not correct or accurate - it would be useful to
> understand why you see deviating from this, and what problems you would
> believe it would solve.”
>
> It appears you are unwilling to allow the BRs to deviate ISO-3166 –
> correct?
>

No, this is not correct, although I appreciate you asking for confirmation
this time rather than misrepresenting what I said. I do hope that, as
Chair, you consider this as a future strategy for more productive and
harmonious discussion.

I was asking you to share more detail about why you supported changing it,
especially given your admission that you did not understand the reasons why
it it existed. Unfortunately, it seems you did not understand this request,
which I am given to assume it also means you did not understand why I
requested it, nor do you understand the concerns I originally expressed
with changing it.

If you re-read my messages, you will see I was - and am - quite supportive
of the discussion Dimitris proposed. In supporting this discussion, I asked
you to explain the rationale for your support. Further, I attempted to
highlight the danger and problem with your position - supporting a change
you do not understand to text which exists for a reason you do not
understand. I'm unclear why you would do so, given that you provided no
details other than you didn't understand it, and I provided reasons that it
does exist, but for which you seemed to not understand. It does seem unwise
to use ignorance as a attempt to appear progressive, and an attempt to
explain in a way that you might understand, I made an analogy for which
there's ample explanation available, in the hopes that if you did not
understand me, you might at least avail yourself to other resources.

I welcome discussion of this point in the Forum, and hope that those who
would support such a ballot will be able to articulate what they understand
the current requirements to be intended for, and why it would be desirable
to change. I suspect this will require further research on your part, so I
do hope you reconsider this request that you be able to articulate your
understanding before proposing changes.

All the best
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170317/27e4e87c/attachment-0003.html>