jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jmabdp at
Tue Dec 29 12:38:24 CET 2009

2009/12/29 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at>

> Non-singularity has been a fact since November, 2001. Ms. Berny is 8
> years behind on her reading. On the bright side, she's not offering,
> today at any rate, to lecture on mathematics.

Dear Sir,
I am afraid I do not understand this. May be some lecture of yours would be
of help your criptic remark?

>  > About the Internet reality this WG has now technically confirmed the
> > capacity.The transition from the default legacy to the Multi-[lingual,
> > lateral, technology, namespace, presentation, class, national, cultural,
> > etc. etc.] Internet.
> IETF Working Groups technically confirm documents. A lot of them are
> without significance, even for non-specialists.

I am just get used to IETF mostly through this WG. You mean that most of its
work is useless. IMHO the work of this WG is of real use.

> While IDNI (note the "I") could have resulted in an infrastructure
> transition, or at least, the adoption of an infrastructure already
> deployed where the problem existed, but not where it was defined, or
> solved, for local values of "definition" and "solution",

I found a mail of yours dated Oct. 28, 2001 introducing IDNI with the last
"I" standing for Infrastructure. Is this why you say that non-sigularity is
with us since that date?

> IDNA and
> IDNAbis merely provide a presentation layer feature set on an
> unchanged infrastructure.

We are in agreement. And this is why the mixed use of the namespace is a new
environment for name and address only oriented organizations like ICANN.

To restate, if what IDNA achieved is the laundry list offered by the
> exuberant Mr. Suger, then each of those is merely a presentation layer
> feature set, and each is trivially equivalent to any other
> presentation layer feature set.

The presentation layer as described by Jefsey is certainly a starting point.
But the main point IMHO is that IETF implemented it as a user virtual layer.
This means that it does not belong to an Internet infrastructure, but to an
Internet removable superstructure. This is why this is a complex situation
for ICANN I understand as dedicated to the infrastructure.

> > As Rod Beckstrom put-it, the Internet is going to change for the first
> > time in 40 years. Switching from English ASCII passive content
> > prototyping to full multi-lingual active content services operations.
> > This is not a small thing. We are better to help people prepare for it.
> I don't have any reason to think Mr. Beckstrom has gotten his sea legs
> yet, or has the reach of the problem, of which is this but a part, in
> his grasp. I recall clearly that it took me nearly a year to frame my
> problems, first writing the First European Unix Standard, and several
> years later writing the Global Unix Standard, each in competitive,
> multi-lateral, large industrial sector contexts, and each time with
> committed opposition, first AT&T, and then MicroSoft. I don't think
> his current billet any simpler.

You are correct from your engineer's point of view. Rod comes from the
outside with a political agenda to impact on the use of the Internet. The
feeling I adhere to is that IDNA and DNSSEC are key technical parts of that
agenda. What ever this agenda really is, ICANN people will have to support
it. IMHO it is better we help them supporting well, because -even if you
disagree with it- it is no good to have a big project for the internet being
mishandled (it is more complex to correct).

> Rod is no authority, and quoting him as if he were an authority is the
> weakest argument to offer.
> He's going to make mistakes, like any new XO.

The Chair declared IDNA2008 as completed and the AD sent it to the IESG. Rod
is the Authority in the problem at hand: to help ICANN sorting out IDNA2008
correctly, transitionning from IDNA2009 so we can document some stable
IDNA2010. This WG/Chair has proposed Tina and Cary to take the lead for the
transition. They are to explain us how and where. Cary promised it, and Tina
proposed to explain it to me privately on the phone.

All of us only need they do it in an ICP-Draft. Otherwise we will have to do
it without them. This would be too bad.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list