<div class="gmail_quote">2009/12/29 Eric Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Non-singularity has been a fact since November, 2001. Ms. Berny is 8<br>
years behind on her reading. On the bright side, she's not offering,<br>
today at any rate, to lecture on mathematics.<br></blockquote><div><br>Dear Sir,<br>I am afraid I do not understand this. May be some lecture of yours would be of help your criptic remark?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
> About the Internet reality this WG has now technically confirmed the<br>
> capacity.The transition from the default legacy to the Multi-[lingual,<br>
> lateral, technology, namespace, presentation, class, national, cultural,<br>
> etc. etc.] Internet.<br>
<br>
</div>IETF Working Groups technically confirm documents. A lot of them are<br>
without significance, even for non-specialists.<br></blockquote><div><br>I am just get used to IETF mostly through this WG. You mean that most of its work is useless. IMHO the work of this WG is of real use.<br> <br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
While IDNI (note the "I") could have resulted in an infrastructure<br>
transition, or at least, the adoption of an infrastructure already<br>
deployed where the problem existed, but not where it was defined, or<br>
solved, for local values of "definition" and "solution", </blockquote><div><br>I found a mail of yours dated Oct. 28, 2001 introducing IDNI with the
last "I" standing for Infrastructure. Is this why you say that
non-sigularity is with us since that date?<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">IDNA and<br>
IDNAbis merely provide a presentation layer feature set on an<br>
unchanged infrastructure.<br></blockquote><div><br>We are in agreement. And this is why the mixed use of the namespace is a new environment for name and address only oriented organizations like ICANN.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
To restate, if what IDNA achieved is the laundry list offered by the<br>
exuberant Mr. Suger, then each of those is merely a presentation layer<br>
feature set, and each is trivially equivalent to any other<br>
presentation layer feature set.<br></blockquote><div><br>The presentation layer as described by Jefsey is certainly a starting point. But the main point IMHO is that IETF implemented it as a user virtual layer. This means that it does not belong to an Internet infrastructure, but to an Internet removable superstructure. This is why this is a complex situation for ICANN I understand as dedicated to the infrastructure.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
> As Rod Beckstrom put-it, the Internet is going to change for the first<br>
> time in 40 years. Switching from English ASCII passive content<br>
> prototyping to full multi-lingual active content services operations.<br>
> This is not a small thing. We are better to help people prepare for it.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't have any reason to think Mr. Beckstrom has gotten his sea legs<br>
yet, or has the reach of the problem, of which is this but a part, in<br>
his grasp. I recall clearly that it took me nearly a year to frame my<br>
problems, first writing the First European Unix Standard, and several<br>
years later writing the Global Unix Standard, each in competitive,<br>
multi-lateral, large industrial sector contexts, and each time with<br>
committed opposition, first AT&T, and then MicroSoft. I don't think<br>
his current billet any simpler.<br></blockquote><div><br>You are correct from your engineer's point of view. Rod comes from the outside with a political agenda to impact on the use of the Internet. The feeling I adhere to is that IDNA and DNSSEC are key technical parts of that agenda. What ever this agenda really is, ICANN people will have to support it. IMHO it is better we help them supporting well, because -even if you disagree with it- it is no good to have a big project for the internet being mishandled (it is more complex to correct).<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Rod is no authority, and quoting him as if he were an authority is the<br>
weakest argument to offer.<br>
<br>
He's going to make mistakes, like any new XO.<br></blockquote><div><br>The Chair declared IDNA2008 as completed and the AD sent it to the IESG. Rod is the Authority in the problem at hand: to help ICANN sorting out IDNA2008 correctly, transitionning from IDNA2009 so we can document some stable IDNA2010. This WG/Chair has proposed Tina and Cary to take the lead for the transition. They are to explain us how and where. Cary promised it, and Tina proposed to explain it to me privately on the phone. <br>
<br>All of us only need they do it in an ICP-Draft. Otherwise we will have to do it without them. This would be too bad.<br><br>Portzamparc<br></div></div><br>