WG Review: Recharter of Internationalized Domain Names in Applications, Revised (idnabis)

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Wed Aug 19 21:17:06 CEST 2009


we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the  
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving  
flexibility on the mapping matter.

The notion of including a non-normative mapping document was very late  
in the process and the charter just gives the WG the latitude to  
include what it agreed in wanted to include in the work.

any charter written 18 months ago is bound to be somewhat out of date,  
especially the target milestones. You may blame the chairman for  
failing to achieve them but I don't think we need to revise them now  
as they would be purely historical given the current last call about  
to expire in a couple of days (unless someone actually asks for  

Speaking of which, no one has actually requested an extension of the  
original 24 August deadline so I am going to close comments on the  
Last Call at end of the day on the 24th unless I hear differently from  
the WG participants.


On Aug 19, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Looking at this recharter, the immediate question I had was "what has
> actually changed in the charter?" so I can figure out if I care.
> I gather there is one very small change. But you'd have to be a WG
> insider to know this.
> Also, reading through the charter, it reads like it was written a year
> and a half ago (which it was), and parts of the text in the charter
> are OBE, so just reading the charter as is gives a misleading picture
> of where things currently stand.
> I guess I'm raising a bit of a meta point here that this recharter
> announcement is not very helpful to the general community, which seems
> bad. And if the charter needs to be updated, it really should be
> updated to reflect the current state of play.
> In particular:
> - it is not easy to figure out what has actually changed relative
>   the current charter (this could have been handled by a short note
>   providing context as part of the  announcement).
> - it includes actions of the form "will do" that I believe have
>   already been done. (e.g., there are 6 WG documents, not 4 as the
>   charter suggests, the design team is presumably no longer driving
>   this, as the documents are fully WG ones now, and the WG is not
>   doing an "extended review" of the DT output, etc.)
> Now, I suspect that it was decided to minimize the amount of work
> needed to recharter and thus just update the one or two important
> sentences in the charter, and I sympathize with that desire. But I
> would also hope we could at least update it so that the average IETF
> reader (or anyone interested in IDNs for that matter) could read the
> charter and understand the current state of play. I don't think it
> would take a lot of effort to update it, and I'm not calling for any
> subtantive changes. They should all be editorial, so additional
> changes should not be controversial.
> IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> writes:
>> Goals and Milestones:
>> Apr 2008     WG formation
>> May 2008     Decision on form and structure of the WG document set
>> Sep 2008     WG Last Call on WG document set
>> Nov 2008     IETF Last Call on WG document set
> Oops!
> Thomas

More information about the Idna-update mailing list