Subject: [iucg] starting points

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:50:45 +0100

Dear colleagues,
I suggest that we start by discussing the basic principles of our working
framework in order to document IDNA2010, which is to be an open, better
usage wrap-up of IDNA2008/2003.

A. we establish, as a principle, that we do not discuss IDNA or build from
IDNA, but rather describe the IDNA2010 conventions, and then make sure that
they conform, or are transparent, to IDNA2008

B. in so doing, we adopt a pragmatic unsophisticated straightforward
approach  that is adequate for end users from all walks of life and
cultures.

Portzamparc.

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:27:43 +0100

At 01:50 11/12/2009, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>I suggest that we start by discussing the basic principles of our 
>working framework in order to document IDNA2010, which is to be an 
>open, better usage wrap-up of IDNA2008/2003.

So we establish the context. Not the rationale? Suits me if we also 
jump at some running code and test users. Could be faster and 
simpler. I tend to modelize too much :-).

>A. we establish, as a principle, that we do not discuss IDNA or 
>build from IDNA, but rather describe the IDNA2010 conventions, and 
>then make sure that they conform, or are transparent, to IDNA2008

I committed to build on top of IDNA2008, this is your show. I 
understand that if I am to appeal against IDNA2008 on "technical 
background" this might create a confusion. I am working on a position 
statement that puts the ball in Vint's field. A little more 
complicated because ICANN is not playing fair in all this, but rough 
position: if you do not impeach network neutrality (now or in the 
future due to jurisprudence) I am OK. If you do, we opposed enough 
the idea as an architectural violation, not to accept it now.

In any case, the background question: who decides of human cultures - 
IETF, people or both in common - does not affect the protocols as you 
name it. It affects its deployment and permit ICANN [Fast Track] and 
Google [GDNS] to over influence the market in a 
centralised/decentralised direction which contradicts the 
decentralised nature of usage, and the possibility to establish users 
conventions. As in charge of the Project.FRA, the test for me is 
simple: when at the earliest .FRA can be in the NTIA Root file? If 
this is in May 2010 it is OK, if not there will be a problem. Same 
for the Multilinc zones.

>approach  that is adequate for end users from all walks of life and cultures.

Here are the straightforward starting points that I am suggesting:

1. "Protocols" are the procedures that are documented by the IETF. We 
call "Conventions" the mutual understandings insuring Interplus "b2b" 
(i.e. "[inter]box2box", "[inter]boitaboite") interintelligibility.

2. UDNs are whatever users may enter in an application that will 
eventually lead to an Internet Protocol IPv4 or IPv6 address resolution.

3. LDNs are whatever local usages/zone rules are supposed to 
massage/restrict UDNs into.

4. ADNs are whatever applications may accept in the domain name 
locations of the IETF protocols.

5. IDNs are "Interplus Domain Names", i.e. whatever both the Internet 
Name to Address resolution system (currently the "DNS") _and_ the 
Interplus will accept as valid inputs.

6. DNs are whatever the Internet Name to Address resolution system 
(currently the "DNS") accepts as valid inputs.

7. Every IDN registration is based upon the WYRISYG convention ("what 
you register is what you get") that does not imply any IDN specific 
responsibility.

jfc

---

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:39:48 +0100

2009/12/11 Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>

Please remove the [email-masked] from these messages and any
replies. It is completely inappropriate for the WG. Thanks!

Dear Paul,

I am sorry. This is strictly carried according to the IUCG non-WG mission
and charter. We are to help structured contributions of Internet Users to
the work of Internet Engineers. Our concerns are the user side continuation
of this WG Charter: "Subject to the more general constraints described
above, the WG is permitted to consider changes that are not strictly
backwards- compatible.  For any such change that is recommended, it is
expected to document the reasons for the change, the characters affected,
and possible transition strategies".

The interest of [email-masked] (which was established a few weeks ago)
is in discussing the usage transition between IDNA2003 (with hundred of
millions of users) and the proposed IDNA2008 that is now completed (cf. the
Chair). The problem is now with us. We have gathered people interested in
discussing it of different origin and responsibility. We start working
because there are several delayed experimentations and projects (this WG was
supposed to last a few months and complete its work one year ago). It now
turns out that an "after last minute" debate has eventually started on
matter we consider in our scope and of importance. .

We certainly want to cooperate and make sure no unnecessary misunderstanding
happens (both ways) while we are in the process of taking the con over.

2009/12/11 JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>

>> usage wrap-up of IDNA2008/2003.
OK.

> I committed to build on top of IDNA2008, this is your show. I understand
> that if I am to appeal against IDNA2008 on "technical background" this might
> create a confusion. I am working on a position statement that puts the ball
> in Vint's field. A little more complicated because ICANN is not playing fair
> in all this, but rough position: if you do not impeach network neutrality
> (now or in the future due to jurisprudence) I am OK. If you do, we opposed
> enough the idea as an architectural violation, not to accept it now.
>

We are waiting for it.
At least one ccTLD has expressed its interest to review it with you.

> In any case, the background question: who decides of human cultures - IETF,
> people or both in common - does not affect the protocols as you name it. It
> affects its deployment and permit ICANN [Fast Track] and Google [GDNS] to
> over influence the market in a centralised/decentralised direction which
> contradicts the decentralised nature of usage, and the possibility to
> establish users conventions. As in charge of the Project.FRA, the test for
> me is simple: when at the earliest .FRA can be in the NTIA Root file? If
> this is in May 2010 it is OK, if not there will be a problem. Same for the
> Multilinc zones.
>
>
> 1. "Protocols" are the procedures that are documented by the IETF. We call
> "Conventions" the mutual understandings insuring Interplus "b2b" (i.e.
> "[inter]box2box", "[inter]boitaboite") interintelligibility.
>

Yes. We had agreed that yesterday to avoid confision between IUCG and IETD
deliverables.

>
> 2. UDNs are whatever users may enter in an application that will eventually
> lead to an Internet Protocol IPv4 or IPv6 address resolution.
>
> 4. ADNs are whatever applications may accept in the domain name locations
> of the IETF protocols.
>
> 5. IDNs are "Interplus Domain Names", i.e. whatever both the Internet Name
> to Address resolution system (currently the "DNS") _and_ the Interplus will
> accept as valid inputs.
>
> 7. Every IDN registration is based upon the WYRISYG convention ("what you
> register is what you get") that does not imply any IDN specific
> responsibility.
>

This is an important point. It certainly addresses the WG debate in an
Internet User straightfroward manner. The responsibility (and autonomous
decision) is left to the User. Thank you Mr. Engineer and Mrs. Zone Manager.
We are grown boys, we have consultants, we have many different needs you
never considered. This really is what we want. I like the formula as it
clearly expresses that we do not want any "simplifying" complex confusion.

Question is: is WYRIWYG an acceptable position?

Portzamparc

---

From: Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:52:40 -0500

Jean-Michel,

please remove idna-update from your distribution list. If you want to  
discuss "IDNA2010" it is NOT on the IDNABIS agenda but you are free to  
discuss off list.

vint

On Dec 10, 2009, at 7:50 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:

> Portzamparc. _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update