ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation
james at seng.sg
Tue Sep 15 01:30:31 CEST 2009
The amount of time to prepare a "IETF respond" will probably takes as
much as time as it will do the last call (if not more).
IETF will takes as much as time as it needs to wrap up its works and no more.
If the last call is completed before Seoul, then it is complete. If is
not, then it is not. The answer will be clear in due time.
I do not see a need for this working group to divert its attention to
draft a formal respond.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Tina,
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Tina Dam <tina.dam at icann.org> wrote:
>> Siva, if you are asking for a formal ietf response then this may not be as
>> simple to produce quickly. If you are ok with vint's reply below then this
>> would enable the members of this list to spend their time on getting to the
>> ietf last call.
> First, I am very thankful to Vint Cerf for his reply, but as he has
> indicated his reply does not constitute a comprehensive response.
> You are right in your observation that it may not be simple for IETF to
> produce a response quickly. Whether it is difficult to produce or takes time
> for IETF to produce it, a consolidated IETF report is essential. If we make
> a summary of the work done by IETF, it would be a summary riddled with
> inferences, whereas if it comes from the IETF it would be precise. Moreover
> I do not wish to make guesses about what IETF feels about the technical
> And, how would this exercise prevent members of this list from spending time
> on getting to the IETF last call? My questions are not in any manner
> intended to distract the list from their current pursuits.
>> If you need something more detailed for the korea meeting then I and
>> others can provide that in an idn update to the alac and at-large members.
> You have been very helpful, and your updates are informative. But this
> request to this list is more in the nature of a question to IETF about what
> the IETF feels about the technical preparedness as also questions succh as
> "Does IETF have any recommendation for 'technically-phasing' in IDN
> implementation?" for which the response can only come from the IETF.
> Tina, I wish to assure you that I am equally, if not more, passionate about
> IDN implementation as you are. At the same time I feel that it important to
> make sure that every thing is thoroughly considered.
>> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
>> <idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no>
>> To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>; Patrik Fältström
>> <patrik at frobbit.se>; idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
>> Sent: Sun Sep 13 13:45:27 2009
>> Subject: Re: ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track
>> Process Implementation
>> we are in final stages of the WG last call and hope to have the final
>> documents to the AD this week.
>> It is too early to tell how well these changes will be implemented and how
>> quickly they will spread.
>> The browser software vendors are already meeting, however, informally to
>> assess how to incorporate IDNA2008 while coping with IDNA2003 legacy domain
>> name registrations.
>> I know this is not a comprehensive response.
>> vint cerf
>> On Sep 13, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>> I wish to request a summary from IETF for the purpose of reporting to ALAC
>> and to the at-Large structures through the RALOs about the status of
>> completion of technical tasks related to IDN implementation. IETF has done
>> exhaustive work in this area and at-Large has been informed about the recent
>> internet drafts
>> At-Large structures comprise users who might require a non-technical
>> summary of technical progress covering answers to questions such as:
>> 1) Has IETF completed all technical tasks related to IDN implementation?
>> If there are any pending tasks, are these tasks expected to be completed in
>> time before the implementation begins and if there are to be any further
>> pending tasks, will be be safe to assume that such pending tasks are of a
>> non-critical nature?
>> 2) Is IETF 'comfortable' with the technical preparedness for IDN
>> implementation to begin immediately following the ICANN meeting at Seoul? In
>> other words, is there an "all-set" green signal from IETF?
>> 3) Though IDN TLDs are to be implemented in a phased manner, (fast-tracked
>> ccTLDs first, followed by the next wave of IDN ccTLDs /gTLDs) the
>> implementation might proceed to fully integrate IDN TLDs in the root.I would
>> call the 'fast-track first' sequence as 'adminsitrative-phasing' of IDN TLD
>> implementation. Does IETF have any recommendation for 'technically-phasing'
>> in IDN implementation? ( I would be glad to non-technically expand this
>> This communication is posted as a request for inputs.
>> Thank you.
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> IDN Liaison - At Large Advisory Committee
>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>> 2009/9/10 Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>
>>> On 10 sep 2009, at 04.07, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>> what is the status of each of your documents in terms of absorbing
>>>> inputs from last call?
>>> You should see new version of -tables- today.
>>>> What issues do you need me, as chair, to provide guidance for, if any?
>>> None (I am pretty sure of...).
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update