<html>
<body>
At 18:15 11/03/2009, Erik van der Poel wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From my point of view, we have
plenty of<br>
participation in this WG from people who state how difficult it is
to<br>
introduce these, but very little participation from those who can<br>
state the actual needs of the various impacted communities. So there<br>
may be a natural tendency of this WG to gravitate toward approaches<br>
that do not require difficult transitions.<br><br>
So my question is: Given that this may be our last chance to make<br>
changes of this nature to the IDNA spec, is it OK for the IETF to be<br>
biased against the communities' needs?</blockquote><br>
<font face="arial" size=2>These words are the type that I should support.
However, I should tell you how the IETF and we
(<a href="mailto:france@large">france@large</a>) have worked on the
matter. <br><br>
1. We first posed the question to Vint: Does IDNA target to be the ML-DNS
solution that people expect? James Seng and Vint Cerf, responded with a
rather clear: "no". It looks to be RFC compatible. (This means
constraints on usage, or to encapsulate it into something
helpfull).<br><br>
2. Vint proposed for me to create an ML-DNS side list. I saw that:<br>
</font> <font face="arial" size=2>- it would extend
beyond the Charter area: Vint confirmed in asking me to not refer to
ML-DNS any more.<br>
</font> <font face="arial" size=2>-with the Internet
PLUS concept (Parallel Layered User Systemic), we came with something
that could be generic.<br><br>
3. I, therefore, appealed the IESG "against" Vint precisely for
community users to be helped in dialoging with the IETF work - so to
formally know the IESG attitude. The appeal was positively dismissed and
the
</font><a href="mailto:iucg@ietf.org">iucg@ietf.org</a>
<font face="arial" size=2> list and site were subsequently created. It
will certainly take some time to build-up and for me to transfer it to a
more adequate governance..<br><br>
4. I then appealed to the IAB in order to obtain their respective views.
This is now clear, and documented in the IUCG Charter and FAQs
(<a href="http://iucg.org site/" eudora="autourl">http://iucg.org
site</a>).<br><br>
5. I also used the French language issues to learn how to best help other
language communities.<br>
</font> <font face="arial" size=2>- we obtained strong French
people support, but I was not listened to very much in here.<br>
</font> <font face="arial" size=2>- since only TLD Managers
(DENIC, GRNIC) are listened to, we have initiated the ".fra"
French language gTLD project, which is to be manned, financed, governed,
and administered along the international dynamic coalition/enhanced
cooperation WSIS framework. <br><br>
6. The DNS system should be considered in a systemic manner. We identify
three layers.<br>
- the names of usage (what people actually enter, remember, and
publicize)<br>
- the registry namespace policy with two case-sensitivities<br>
- the protocol where:<br>
</font> <font face="arial" size=2>- we do not care about IDNA 2003
compatibility, since we never used it.<br>
</font> <font face="arial" size=2>- we intend to use
"xs--" (for case sensitive) instead of "xn--" (for
non-case-sensitive)<br><br>
7. Every language community should do the same, especially the main
languages and all the ISO 3166 languages. This means that there should be
an ".eng" project (or perhaps the WG could split on English to
study this more quickly) in order for the WG to better differentiate what
belongs to (1) the language (2) the registries (3) the protocol.<br><br>
The IETF should only document the protocol. That protocol should provide
Registries and users with the tools/solutions that they need to implement
their own policies.<br><br>
</font>Best<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>