Dear Cary,<br><br>from the different mails exchanged on this list, I understand that :<br><br>- you want two different wehicles for (1) the protocol (IDNA2008 document set produced by this WG) and (2) guidelines/BCP to assist in implementing and transitionning its introduction.<br>
- Tina Dam is in charge of issuing a new set of guidelines that will apply to Fast Track participants.<br>
- in this endeavor you are playing a role equivalent to an IETF AD<br>
- the ICANN BoD has a role equivalent to the IESG in order to approve the document (hence the Ombudsman is the appeal procedure).<br>
- Tina Dam is going to run six meetings on the guidelines starting January 11th<br>
- you will report this meetings the transition propositions discussed on this list.<br><br>
As you know, I am the facilitator of the <a href="mailto:workon@idna2010.org">workon@idna2010.org</a> mailing list that targets the publication of a BCP on the implementation, transition and deployment of IDNA2008. I understand that in first phase you are concerned by a politically limited number of IDNccTLDs. Our own target is similar. However it is more general since it targets billions of existing or future zone Managers who are going to actually use the IDNA system.<br>
<br>
There is by nature a broad difference and at the same time a necessary complementarity between IDNA within the Internet governance and operations and within the users' applications architectures. <br><br>
1. I therefore approve Vint position "I would argue that the WG has completed its technical work on the standards and that the transition question is moved to the ICANN Guidelines group for analysis and consideration" if these questions have also already moved to the IUCG IDNA2010. <br>
<br>
2. I suppose you have no objection that we consider the best way to liaise about our complementary works. If this may help: (1) the <a href="mailto:workon@idna2010.org">workon@idna2010.org</a> mailing list is open to everyone. (2) I will actually keep the work low on this strictly moderated list until the production of a computer assisted communication general review I_D that will permit to clearly locate IDNA related issues.<br>
<br>
3. Our approval of Vint position extends to not finalize any position until the IDNA2008 document set has been published as RFC, allowing a full review by the IESG, possible appeals if the text had been conceptually modified on some points during the review process and requests for guidance to the IAB in the case some transition mechanisms did conflict with other existing RFCs.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
JM Bernier de Portzamparc