Subject: [I18nrp] administrivia: i18nrp vs. i18n-discuss

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 12:22:47 -0700

Hi all,

It's great to see the renewed energy in the discussions here. However,
[email-masked] was set up mainly to plan the BoF at IETF 102, not as a
general discussion list for i18n topics. I'd like to suggest that we use
the existing i18n-discuss list going forward:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss

Peter

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:44:36 +0100

As we identified it, a default table has a cost and therefore must 
have a financial return either in money or in security to attract an 
maintainer. RF6852 should lead us identifying the "global community" 
the market of which would most/best benefit from a secure uniform 
stable universal character coding reference table.

I see three of them: the banking community, their interpol/customs 
protectors, the integrated users multitude  (please note that tables 
from per country/langague sources without coordination seem odd in a 
multilateral, multilanguage multimatics context, what rules out 
national investments). We now have historically evidenced that ICANN, 
IETF, industry and OpenSource communities cannot provide arry that job.

Hence, the task belongs to the ITU (if not: to EU or BRICS which may 
have a more immediate need and pave the way) and ultimately to an 
inter-user multitude to structure (lead-users). You know my position 
for years about CLDR. This is an issue that has to do with cultures, 
law violation/enforcement,  (sovereignty),etc.: it cannot be 
delegated to a commercial consortium of vendors (cf. 
http://cldr.unicode.org/index). I know: "the less IETF hears from the 
ITU/UN the best they feel", but the less international public, 
private and civil users can internationnally interact. This seems a 
typical compatibility of interest issues between several global 
communities (business, legal/national, manufacturers, standardization 
bodies, etc.). As per my two denied appeals RFC 6852 should have 
addressed this.

I see two ways out: either the IAB/IETF can devise a solution for a 
global telematics technological governance accepted by sovereign 
nations (Wesphalia) or IUsers have to confederate as "the multitude" 
in order/and to publish the terms of a multimatics "internext" 15 
layers model. From IDNA2003/2018 experience I suppose the delay in 
getting the two solutions off the ground could be equivalent: 15 years?.

Any idea to speed it up? And to positively accomodate the present.
jfcm