Subject: [iucg] Further to Paul Hoffman's mail

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:29:30 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

further to Paul Hoffman's mail and a similar mail from Vint Cerf a 
very productive dialog has developped with the WG/IDNABIS Chair (Vint 
Cerff), the Application AD (Lisa Dussault), the IETF Chair (Russ 
Housley) and the facilitator of this list (JM de Portzamparc). We 
have not only reached a complete agreement on what was a qui pro quo, 
but made progresses to better evaluate the IDNA context and its 
practical organization.

This is the first time that an IETF group of users is involved in the 
study and the wrting of best practices. The main problem we have is 
that we all expected a faster approval of the WG/IDNABIS document set 
by the IESG. This would have matched the ICANN precipitation and 
kilotons of documents with a very seriously worked on IETF 
back-ground. It would implicitely have said "who is what" (IETF, 
users, ICANN) and who is authoritative in the various parts of IDNA 
(network, interplus, users). Every concerned IETF leader is therefore 
aware that we need that response by approval of the IDNA document set 
or appeal to the IESG. No one objects.

The position I maintain is that the IUCG :
- can only meet the ICANN position because they also are users,
- think it is premature,
- wants an IETF clear definition of the zone of architectural 
authority (network, interplus, user machines, applications).
- object to the ICANN denial of IDNgTLD projects as detrimental to a 
good Multilingual Internet deployment. It is like if ".us" had been 
the only TLD in town when they started the DNS.

Regards.
jfc morfin
Chair, IUCG