CLDR data (Re: Comments on the IDNA2008 document)

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:43 +0100 Lang Gérard
<gerard.lang at insee.fr> wrote:

> Dear All, 
> 
> It is clear, as Jaap writes, that columns 9 and 10 (and 11) of
> ISO 3166-1(2006) are informative as explicitely stated by
> clause 6.1. It is nevertheless also the case that these
> columns are practically aligned with the list given by Part
> Three of the "Technical reference manual for the
> standardization of geographical names" issued from the United
> Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN, that works
> under the United Nations Division of Statistics) and published
> in 2007 by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
> So, if these two quasi-equivalent references  cannot be
> presented as "juridically official documents" (and maybe such
> a document will never exist !), they certainly make authority
> on this question of administrative languages,  as is notably
> proven by the section 3.1 Language and Scripts Criteria (page
> 7) of ICANN's "Draft Implementation Plan for IDN ccTLD Fast
> Track Process (26 november 2008)." 

The more important issues are that 

(1) While we should be cautious about predictions of the future
based on extrapolations from the past, there are more domains
registered in gTLDs and subtrees of TLDs than in all of the
ccTLDs aggregated.  And there is no practical way to impose a
"what languages are permitted" limitation of gTLDs.  Indeed,
while they can (and many so far have), permitted languages
incrementally as they establish policies), a case can be made
that most of them are prohibited, either administratively or
morally, from making such restrictions.

(2) If IDNs are important to any population, they are at least
as important to minority populations and endangered languages as
they are to those whose languages have administrative status in
a given country.  In many situations, one could argue that they
are more important (for either positive or negative reasons).
The endangered minority language issue figures prominently in
UNESCO activities and in various African ones, and has been
important in some IGF discussions.  I assume that the only
reason it does not figure into ICANN's "fast track" materials is
that the "ccTLD Fast Track" is designed rather intentionally to
deal with immediate, high-demand, "low lying fruit".  

(3) If one intends to supplement or supercede the DNS with, or
hide it behind, some highly-localized naming arrangement, as I
have often understood Jefsey to propose, then discussions of
IDNs are almost irrelevant unless we manage to make them so
confusing and unstable that the DNS cannot be used as a firm
base for those other systems.  I can elaborate on that issue if
it is not clear.

best regards and best wishes for the new year,
    john

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jaap Akkerhuis [mailto:jaap at NLnetLabs.nl] 
> Envoyé : mardi 13 janvier 2009 10:56
> À : JFC Morfin
> Cc : John C Klensin; Lang Gérard; idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Objet : Re: CLDR data (Re: Comments on the IDNA2008 document) 
> 
> 
>     as you know the official reference is ISO 3106 which gives
> the      languages and script for each country that ccTLD
> should support to      comply at minima with WTP TBT rules.
> Then, once IDNA has stabilised,      Linguasphere 640 should
> permit to complete the ccTag system and      eventually deploy
> the  Multilinc initiative.
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> The table of languages in 3166-1:2006 is additional and
> clearly indicated as "informative" in section 6.1 of 3166 for
> a description of the fields in the column (clearly marked as
> "Additional Information" in the table itself).
> 
> 	jaap