<div class="gmail_quote"><div>Patrik,<br><br>I shut my mouth for a long for two reasons. (1) As a Jedi (Jefsey's Disciple) I will not be listen to. (2) Because I felt that what characterizes the termination of this WG is confusion.<br>
<br> You, Harald, John came with the demand for a job to be done. That job was confirmed by the IESG and IAB under the form of a Charter. Jefsey asked if the Charter or the Users' need was the limit. Vint answered the Charter. They opposed when Vint wanted the IETF to be the limit. That was corrected. And we had a very satisfactory solution.<br>
<br>Unexpectedly that solution was opposed by the AD using out the limit questions (no-mapping says the Charter, why asks the AD; IDNA says the Charter, will IDNA work asks the AD; minimize the transition issues says the Charter; what about the aesthetics of GG's (Greek and German "s"s) asks the AD, etc.). In the meanwhile ICANN has upset the better half of the world in stating that its non-roman ccTLDs Fast Track was the new limit. A new limit they committed to describe publicly but do not so far, in spite of the support of the Chair.<br>
<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">2009/12/22 Patrik Fältström <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:patrik@frobbit.se">patrik@frobbit.se</a>></span><br>
But, more importantly, TR46 is a Unicode Document. Not an IETF
document. Discussions about that document should be in the proper
venue. And Unicode Consortium just like ICANN is waiting for us in IETF
to "just be done" so they (and W3C and whatever else) can do "their
job".<br><br>
I am pretty sure I think we have enough good text in the mappings
document and in rationale. We talk about transition, we talk about
mappings etc, but...I do not think IETF is the correct venue for that
work.<br><br></div>Sure, we have a pretty good document. However there are people who dislike that it is so pretty good. So they made it lame. Not obsolete, but lame, because it is part of architecture, and that architecture (IDNA) is lame. We all know that the AD's questions are pertinent. But this IETF/WG was NOT the venue retained for that work. The good venue is either:<br>
<br>- the IAB, if we want the solution to be an act of God. However, would the IAB be a multilinguistic god we would know it for a long.<br>- the IETF Users. This currently means ICANN, GDNS, Asia, IUCG, may be ITU on one side and the manufacturers (Browsers), services (Search Engines) and Internet Users on other sides.<br>
<br>Patrick Suger told the AD position does not make technical sense: to forward the document set and question the Mapping document the document set consensus is built upon. True.<br><br>However, it makes a pretty governance sens. It spells out to the IESG: "here is the whole problem, due to ICANN Seoul policy u-turn, Unicode incertitudes, Microsoft push, Asian absence, IUCG possible extended architecture and appeals, we cannot address it smoothly anymore at WG level as we all hoped and worked it out. They are going to oppose at an architectural level which may rebuild the whole Internet as ICANN and IUCG claim it does. I cannot address this alone in three months." <br>
<br>IMHO, until IESG discusses it on January 7th we can have a nice familly Xmas time, and for some to pray for the Internet Users not to have a real IDNA2010 solution by their own that would actually enforce IDNA2008 and ... French Majuscules (be sure nothing will be spared to you as long as Project.FRA cannot be in the root before AFNIC sells IDNs, and that IDNs are case sensitive as our real target (Intersem) requires it, sorry but French speakers [from everywhere] aslo are stubborn :-))<br>
<br>Merry Xmas to all.<br><br>Marie-France Berny (JD)<br><br><br><br><br>
</div></div>