ck at nic.museum
Thu Dec 3 11:22:32 CET 2009
>> The operators of .CY and .GR have told us in official capacity that
>> they want the final sigma to be PVALID, fully aware of the collateral
>> effects that they will then need to deal with. It would be delusional
>> to believe that the supportive action of the respective governments
>> could not be mustered.
>> Would someone who understands IETF process better than I do please
>> explain why the discussion of that character needs to proceed any
> Even if this is a rhetorical question, I'll bite.
I actually wasn't laying out any bait but am uncertain, myself, if the
intent was entirely rhetorical. My remark was prompted by the fact that
much of the rhetoric here was been accompanied by claims of
understanding the intention of the most clearly impacted ccTLD
registries. But when two such entities chime in unequivocally with
statements of their actual will, and it turns out that it had been
incorrectly anticipated, all of a sudden it's not an important factor.
I've been further frustrated by the protracted discussion of bundling.
This has similarly contained broad assumptions made by people who are
clearly unfamiliar with current TLD registry practice, both with regard
to situations where bundling might appear useful, and in resolving the
disputes that arise on the basis of the policies they adopt.
> the IETF makes decisions by rough consensus and running code.
Isn't that the second half of a credo that starts with, "We do not worry
about presidents and kings"? Although I'm certainly not questioning the
value of rough consensus as a basis for making decisions, shrugging off
national governments may be a useful adjunct as long as they are not
paying particular attention to what the IETF is doing. Without wishing
to cause any offense, I do fear that we may be about to stress the
scalability of that approach beyond its breaking point.
> Rough consensus is among informed participants as well as experts and
> people in certain positions of authority or responsibility. Running
> code certainly brings in browser/client implementation history and
> current client implementation concerns. It is not only operators of
> the countries where those languages are most spoken, that have
> collateral effects from the status of the characters of those
> languages in IDNA.
If a national orthographic authority, mandates the use of a prescribed
character repertoire in situations relevant to our discussion, we'd
better be darned certain that we have good reasons for providing that
repertoire with partial support. The justification that the most clearly
effected national TLD registries can't manage the consequences of, for
example, supporting the final sigma, can't reasonably be maintained
subsequent to those registries saying that they are aware of the
intricacies can deal with them.
We can, of course, maintain that it is within the remit of this working
group to require greater justification before we accept that reasoning.
Just as long as we realize that it is within the remit of kings and
presidents to seek recourse through normative agencies that are founded
in governmental contexts. Punting this issue into the realm engineering
concern with user confusion will not put us on ground safely free from
More information about the Idna-update