Subject: [iucg] PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment document preparation

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:04:24 +0100

Dear Cary,

from the different mails exchanged on this list, I understand that :

- you want two different wehicles for (1) the protocol (IDNA2008 document
set produced by this WG) and (2) guidelines/BCP to assist in implementing
and transitionning its introduction.
- Tina Dam is in charge of issuing a new set of guidelines that will apply
to Fast Track participants.
- in this endeavor you are playing a role equivalent to an IETF AD
- the ICANN BoD has a role equivalent to the IESG in order to approve the
document (hence the Ombudsman is the appeal procedure).
- Tina Dam is going to run six meetings on the guidelines starting January
11th
- you will report this meetings the transition propositions discussed on
this list.

As you know, I am the facilitator of the [email-masked] mailing list
that targets the publication of a BCP on the implementation, transition and
deployment of IDNA2008. I understand that in first phase you are concerned
by a politically limited number of IDNccTLDs. Our own target is similar.
However it is more general since it targets billions of existing or future
zone Managers who are going to actually use the IDNA system.

There is by nature a broad difference and at the same time a necessary
complementarity between IDNA within the Internet governance and operations
and within the users' applications architectures.

1. I therefore approve Vint position "I would argue that the WG has
completed its technical work on the standards and that the transition
question is moved to the ICANN Guidelines group for analysis and
consideration" if these questions have also already moved to the IUCG
IDNA2010.

2. I suppose you have no objection that we consider the best way to liaise
about our complementary works. If this may help: (1) the
[email-masked] list is open to everyone. (2) I will
actually keep the work low on
this strictly moderated list until the production of a computer assisted
communication general review I_D that will permit to clearly locate IDNA
related issues.

3. Our approval of Vint position extends to not finalize any position until
the IDNA2008 document set has been published as RFC, allowing a full review
by the IESG, possible appeals if the text had been conceptually modified on
some points during the review process and requests for guidance to the IAB
in the case some transition mechanisms did conflict with other existing
RFCs.

Best regards
JM Bernier de Portzamparc