Re: [At-Large] ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation

Sept. 17, 2009

      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

JFC Morfin

tags

participants (1)