This mail was copied to (and blocked by the list for too many recipients): "patrik@frobbit.se" <patrik@frobbit.se>, "vint@google.com" <vint@google.com>, Tina Dam <tina.dam@icann.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, iucg@ietf.org, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, Rod Beckstrom <rod_beckstrom@icann.org>, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org>, barrister@chambers.gen.nz ------ Dear Mr. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, I copy your first mail in annex. This will help the Internet and ICANN @larges people in cc to fully understand your request. Vint Cerf, and several others have answered you that the only documents that IETF produces are RFCs. IMHO, as an IDN liaison you should be the one reporting ALAC the document you request, based upon your participation to the WG-IDNABIS. For years france@large (the eldest ALS) has contributed in this area, participating to the MINC, cocreating EUROLINC, intiating the MLTF, being active at the WG-IDNA and WG-IDNABIS. We tried to assist ICANN, ALAC and IETF as much as we could on behalf of the Internet @larges we support. Yet ICANN prevented us to join its WG-IDN, ALAC denied our registration as an ALS. It was not that easy with the IETF but we found a good way of cooperation through the Internet Users Contributing Group as a non-WG iucg@ietf.org mailing list associated with the IUCG charter and site. This is why, as participating to this WG and as an ALS, france@large was able to provide you with its opinion on IDNA2008. We did it gladely as @larges to @larges, even if you make a difference between Internet and ICANN @larges. The way we provide it to all the @larges (internet lead users) we support. We also maintained to everyone's advantage the http://wikidna.org site, you are welcome to use. We are leaders in the IDNAPLUS proposition which addresses better the demand of the Internet @larges, at the cost of a so limited difference that it will most probably be widely adopted if it was not actually included in IETF IDNA. I aslo told you that the only "document" which (with the current status of the I_Ds) gives you formally the indications in the area you ask is the http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iucg-wgidnabislc-01 since it compiles all the WG/LC remarks. This document was precisely made to the advantage of @larges for them to be able to better decide if they will support or not the documents during the coming IETF/LC. Will you be there? What surprises me is that: - ALAC certainly has the best expert on the issue, the new ALAC NOMCOM Member, former WG-IDNA Chair, James Seng, who was the Chair of the first WG-IDNA and who maintains a Blog on IDNs. - you received the best comment from John Klensin, former IETF liaison to ICANN, author of the core documents, who told you that nothing could seriously be considered, irt Fast Track, before RFC 1123 is updated. A last suggestion I could make is to send the WG a questionnaire to the Chair about what you want to know. We did that at the start of the WG, asking about the intent for this WG. The Chair approved and followed on the answer we received from James Seng. http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=Is_IDNA_an_ML-DNS_to_be . Best
Hello
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 <https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy>https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
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 IETF?
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>http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
At 12:54 17/09/2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
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.
Harald
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
Hello Tina,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Tina Dam <tina.dam@icann.org <mailto:tina.dam@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 IETF.
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.
Tina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no> <idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no>> *To*: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> *Cc*: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>>; Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se <mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>>; idna-update@alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update@alvestrand.no> <idna-update@alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update@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:
Hello
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 https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
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 IETF?
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@frobbit.se <mailto:patrik@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...).
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Idna-update mailing list Idna-update@alvestrand.no <mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
_______________________________________________ Idna-update mailing list Idna-update@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update