is IDNA the ML-DNS we wait for ?

[JFC Morfin]

At 04:40 17/05/2008, Vint Cerf wrote:
>Thanks james, you and e a common understanding of the focus for this 
>working group.
>V

Dear Vint,
I read this as "you and I have a common understanding of the focus 
for this working group".

As I commented to James,  the question is not about the focus of this 
WG which is IDNA. The question is about what do you expect from 
IDNA  as compared to these users expectations.

The initial WG-IDNA charter called for a survey of the user demand. 
If I am correct it was then decided it was beyond what IETF could do 
and it was eventually decided that the best was to give the RFC a try 
and to review the IDNA proposition after a few years of pragmatic 
deployment.. This is exactly what is happening. Most of the members 
of this group have participated to the whole WG-IDNA process, 
contributed to the first implementations of IDNA, worked on its 
update, jointly decided of this WG-IDNABIS. This represents a 
considerable amount of experience, expertise and knowledge about 
internationalization on the market.

I chair an @large organisation. Our understanding of an @large is 
someone considering himself from his knowledge, involvement, 
investment, monthly bill, usage, innovative thinking and efforts, 
business involvement, political and societal responsibilities, etc. 
as an Internet co-owner. Most are more interested in applied semantic 
strata, consider the ASCII DNS as a good tool, and agree with WSIS 
multilingualism for which they expect the DNS to work transparently. 
They just want to know, if you consider that IDNA will eventually 
bring an answer to their needs as they express them, or if you do not 
and why. This is only because they want to know if they should just 
keep waiting for November, help the concertation meeting I proposed, 
or give a try to an Internet upgrade supporting the missing OSI 
layers in a different but interoperable manner.

jfc