ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation
harald at alvestrand.no
Thu Sep 17 12:54:00 CEST 2009
Remember that the total paid staff of the IETF is ~6 people, and they do
not get involved in technical discussions.
All document work, including working up summaries like the one you wish
to see, has to be done by volunteers - people whose hours are paid for
by other organizations.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Tina,
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Tina Dam <tina.dam at icann.org
> <mailto:tina.dam at icann.org>> wrote:
> Siva, if you are asking for a formal ietf response then this may
> not be as simple to produce quickly. If you are ok with vint's
> reply below then this would enable the members of this list to
> spend their time on getting to the ietf last call.
> First, I am very thankful to Vint Cerf for his reply, but as he has
> indicated his reply does not constitute a comprehensive response.
> You are right in your observation that it may not be simple for IETF
> to produce a response quickly. Whether it is difficult to produce or
> takes time for IETF to produce it, a consolidated IETF report is
> essential. If we make a summary of the work done by IETF, it would be
> a summary riddled with inferences, whereas if it comes from the IETF
> it would be precise. Moreover I do not wish to make guesses about what
> IETF feels about the technical preparedness.
> And, how would this exercise prevent members of this list from
> spending time on getting to the IETF last call? My questions are not
> in any manner intended to distract the list from their current pursuits.
> If you need something more detailed for the korea meeting then I
> and others can provide that in an idn update to the alac and
> at-large members.
> You have been very helpful, and your updates are informative. But this
> request to this list is more in the nature of a question to IETF about
> what the IETF feels about the technical preparedness as also questions
> succh as "Does IETF have any recommendation for 'technically-phasing'
> in IDN implementation?" for which the response can only come from the
> Tina, I wish to assure you that I am equally, if not more, passionate
> about IDN implementation as you are. At the same time I feel that it
> important to make sure that every thing is thoroughly considered.
> *From*: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
> <mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no>
> <idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
> <mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no>>
> *To*: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com
> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>
> *Cc*: Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no
> <mailto:harald at alvestrand.no>>; Patrik Fältström
> <patrik at frobbit.se <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>;
> idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no>
> <idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no>>
> *Sent*: Sun Sep 13 13:45:27 2009
> *Subject*: Re: ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast
> Track Process Implementation
> we are in final stages of the WG last call and hope to have the
> final documents to the AD this week.
> It is too early to tell how well these changes will be implemented
> and how quickly they will spread.
> The browser software vendors are already meeting, however,
> informally to assess how to incorporate IDNA2008 while coping with
> IDNA2003 legacy domain name registrations.
> I know this is not a comprehensive response.
> vint cerf
> On Sep 13, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>> I wish to request a summary from IETF for the purpose of
>> reporting to ALAC and to the at-Large structures through the
>> RALOs about the status of completion of technical tasks related
>> to IDN implementation. IETF has done exhaustive work in this area
>> and at-Large has been informed about the recent internet drafts
>> At-Large structures comprise users who might require a
>> non-technical summary of technical progress covering answers to
>> questions such as:
>> 1) Has IETF completed all technical tasks related to IDN
>> implementation? If there are any pending tasks, are these tasks
>> expected to be completed in time before the implementation begins
>> and if there are to be any further pending tasks, will be be safe
>> to assume that such pending tasks are of a non-critical nature?
>> 2) Is IETF 'comfortable' with the technical preparedness for IDN
>> implementation to begin immediately following the ICANN meeting
>> at Seoul? In other words, is there an "all-set" green signal from
>> 3) Though IDN TLDs are to be implemented in a phased manner,
>> (fast-tracked ccTLDs first, followed by the next wave of IDN
>> ccTLDs /gTLDs) the implementation might proceed to fully
>> integrate IDN TLDs in the root.I would call the 'fast-track
>> first' sequence as 'adminsitrative-phasing' of IDN TLD
>> implementation. Does IETF have any recommendation for
>> 'technically-phasing' in IDN implementation? ( I would be glad to
>> non-technically expand this question)
>> This communication is posted as a request for inputs.
>> Thank you.
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> IDN Liaison - At Large Advisory Committee
>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>> 2009/9/10 Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se
>> <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>>
>> On 10 sep 2009, at 04.07, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> what is the status of each of your documents in terms of
>> absorbing inputs from last call?
>> You should see new version of -tables- today.
>> What issues do you need me, as chair, to provide guidance
>> for, if any?
>> None (I am pretty sure of...).
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>
More information about the Idna-update