Browser IDN display policy: opinions sought

[J-F C. Morfin]

>At 17:35 10/12/2011, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>Let me emphasize that what John writes here is extremely important. 
>If you have the slightest opinion of what "confusing" implies, and 
>what implications approval of "too similar" TLDs might have, 
>specifically cross scripts, you should let ICANN know.
>Now.
>I do explicitly also sign this email as the chair of SSAC. That is 
>not a mistake.
>Patrik Fältström
>Chair ICANN Security and Stability Committee

>At 17:48 10/12/2011, Cary Karp wrote:
>The advisory group for ICANN's Variant Issues Project will be holding
>its wrap-up meeting in Marina del Rey on Monday and Tuesday The issues
>report it is focusing on will finalized in short order thereafter. At
>least three of the people on the idna-update list will be in MdR so
>anything said on it can also be channeled into the VIP discussion.
>
>The "now" that paf mentions really is NOW.
>/Cary

At 16:28 10/12/2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>As to how realistic that assumption is, you might consider:
>
>(1) ICANN's Board apparently (minutes have not yet been posted)
>passed a resolution on Thursday exempting IDN variations on .EU
>from review for visual spoofing and other forms of
>confusability.

Dear John,

ICANN has nothing to do with the Internet *technology* that the IETF
is meant to positively influence (RFC 3935) and that Gervase has
questions about on behalf of Firefox.

The IAB has.

ICANN claims benefits from a limited set of TLDs in class IN, outside
of private networks, outside of IUsers interests, and outside of
non-Internet digital technologies that want to use/already use the
digital naming system and its root names (e.g.: .gsm, the Chinese TLDs
and keywords, etc.). The area of use of browsers (and probable forked
browsers, if open source ones become IUsers-foreign) is much larger.

IMHO, the last thing we need, hence my slowdown for more than one
year, is an inadvertent browser war, or Internet use confusion, over
IDNA. This is why, as IUsers, we certainly are interested in
presentation-layer-related-services being offered by browser
manufacturers, as long as they are RFC documented and we can turn them
up/down at our own will.

The way I understand the problem is that the ball has been in your IAB
field for more than one year after my appeal and the IESG/IAB have
clarified that my area of concerns did affect, but did not belong to,
the IETF scope. The IAB was (this is how I understood its road map) to
decide how IDN/IDNA SHOULD be used in the Internet technology context.
We did not move on this because I had hoped that we could maintain the
IDNA2008 consensus and permit the IAB to move faster in not
interfering. However, it turns out that I was wrong because the
blocking reality questioned by you, me, Lisa, etc. remains: the
IDNA2003/stringprep application-to-application architectural scheme
does not scale to IDNA2008.

We all have also known for years that this issue is to be addressed
prior to January 12, 2012.

The only viable architectural solution that I can figure out, but I
could also be totally wrong, is subsidiarity at the IUI (intelligent
use interface) on a fringe to fringe basis. The implications on many
other diversity related items should have been discussed, over the
course of the last two years, if some interests (IAB, IETF, ICANN,
IGF, GAC, Unicode, Google, etc.) wanted to keep the transition under
joint control. Since nothing has been discussed and, therefore,
prepared and tested, we are heading towards an entirely new internet
(IDv6 addressing, shared virtual unique root file, IDNgTLDs shambles,
IANA revamp, etc.) without any idea of the way we want to manage it
together, or even if we want to manage it together.

If the IAB wants to document its IAB chosen architecture for this new
internet, it has exactly one month left to be clear about a framework.
Then, practical experimentation will have to start prior to the first
ICANN IDNgTLD being officially accepted. Otherwise, it will not be
innovation towards a better internet for all. It will be a long-term
costly competition (global fight) between an obsolete use, a
commercial+ use and an emerging efficient use of the Internet.

I am going to document an IUse position that is to be I_Ded on January
10 if the IAB does not commit beforehand to a position that IUsers can
consensually support. I have no objection to discussing my memo while
I am preparing it (on the iucg at ietf.org mailing list: as you know, I
cannot discuss it on the ietf at ietf.org mailing list).

However, please let seriously discuss only network architecture and
stop cosmetic layer violation confusions.

At 02:02 11/12/2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>[the response to the users] needs to come from a stable, trusted body.
>I question whether such a body who is willing to make a table exists.

Until now I thought that such a competent body was the IAB.

This "really NOW" I will know if I was right.

Best

jfc