At 07:45 02/09/2011, Francisco Arias wrote:
I wonder what others think about the ideas in this document posted to the latin team. Apologies to Harald for putting you in the spot.
Dear Francis, I looked at Harald's contribution carefully. 1. I fully support his "DO NOT DO VARIANTS FOR LATIN SCRIPT" position when considering the issues from an internet technology point of view (i.e. IDNA2008, RFC 5890-5894). 2. However, I do not share his limitations when I consider the same issues from an IUI (Intelligent Use Interface) point of view (i.e. from what is very limitedly exemplified by RFC 5895 - a smart middle networkware between users' plug and socket - i.e. an intelligent fringe addition). The IESG has decided that the IUI was research, at least in part. The IAB made clear that it did not belong to the IETF area (it is actually multitechnology), but it is active in considering from the sole internet DNS and internet PoV some of the same issues that I am exploring in order to support them through the IUI in a universal perspective. This is why any ICANN debate or WG like this WG/VIP, IMHO, should: 2.1. refer to the IAB's RFCs and Drafts: - <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5507>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5507 - http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6055.txt - <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-dns-applications-02.txt>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-dns-applications-02.txt 2.2. position ICANN in the global semiotic area. In other words: internet domain names are usually names of domains/people, more or less adapted to the internet orthotypography (i.e. the script syntax). Depending on the linguistic and semantic context, there might be an interest or a need for variants, i.e. a pragmatic equivalence between different strings. This means four main needs: - an algorithm to avoid homography. - the (partial) support of the linguistic orthotypography within the internet orthotypography. - the aliasing of certain strings. - a mechanism to prevent alias/string conflicts. 3. The mission of the IETF (as defined by Harald - RFC 3935) is to influence those who design, use, and manage the Internet (i.e. ourselves) for it to work better. I am an Internet User (IUse). We IUsers have directly opposed at the WG/IDNABis on three issues, but we were able, however, to reach the IDNA2008 consensus as these issues were positively resolved. The issues were: 3.1. the location of the support of variants (mapping) by the DNS. The Unicode/IETF people wanted a limited mapping in the IDNA technology. This broke the neutrality of the Internet and opened a Pandora's box. The charter disfavored mapping. The RFC 5895's proposed text addressed the issue. 3.2. orthotypography. I wanted IDNA2008 to acknowledge the orthotypography issue and propose a way to address it. This was not even opposed, it was outright disregarded. The problem that I brought to everyone's attention was the French (and Latin) majuscules semantic impact. IDNA2008 does not even allude to them. It was not bad that I was defeated on this point because this makes the ML-DNS mandatory (i.e. multilayer/multilingual variant support). I reported why to the IESG which accepted IDNA2008 as a result (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt) 3.3. ICANN's role. The initial idea was that post-IDNA2008 users' issues would be addressed by ICANN. I opposed that (I have not experienced, ever, a situation when ICANN would want to represent me!), and ICANN did not indicate interest in spite of my mails to the BoD members and ICANN reps (Tina and Cary) at the WG. Therefore, the idea was forgotten. 3.4. Homographic confusion. We never were able to discuss it. The result is that the universal domain naming linguistic diversity (i.e. the designation of any intellectual, operational, industrial, commercial, physical, emotional, etc.) digital support is to be carried by external subsidiarity in a way meeting IDNA2008 rules, when the internet is involved. 4. As a result, one sees that: 4.1. syntax, semantic, pragmatic, scripting and multilinguistic issues are concerned, i.e. every semiotic ( atlarge) aspects. This belongs to what we call the Intersem (Semiotic Internet) layers. 4. 2. variants are by their essence related to users and not to the internet technology. This means that the same variants will be required by users of every technology as well as mean that they will be described, analyzed and documented with the same terminology. This means that the context will be at the end of the day: 4.2.1. either a Semiotic Digital Use Authority coordinating the cooperation of all the semiotic technology oriented endeavors and deciding about a user/digital ecosystem semiotic strategy to which everyone should adhere. 4.2.2. or each of us proceeds independently and trusts that people's use will stabilize the tools and usages. -- ICANN does it based upon IETF RFCs and its possible solutions. However, I fear ICANN has not the technological capacity to address the points it raises. -- IUsers do it based upon ICANN-ICP-3, IETF RFCs and the IUI architecture and in helping the development of a test technology. -- Without forgeting the IETF parallel needs on IRIs and protocols (WG/PRECIS). With a possible further cooperation to build a coordination? 5. What to do now? My suggestion would be that: 5.1. ICANN/VIP should expose the needs that it identifies in terms of variants from a user semiotic PoV, publishing its vision of Users' needs. It should carefully consider the IAB/IETF experience and recommendations, understanding that what the IETF cannot support (cf. Harald) would have to be supported by the ML-DNS within the IUI layers' framework. 5.2. In any case, on our IUser side, we will continue exploring the IUI architecture with plans for three research actions: 5.2.1. semiotic experimentation through Project.FRA, i.e. an open French ontology with the ".fra" TLD using its name space as a commonly drafted taxonomy. 5.2.2. consolidation, experimentation, and support of an IUI technology, including an ML-DNS and the use of the unique virtual root names matrix. 5.2.3. a documentation set of the IUI architecture based on that experimentation and a common multilingual internet terminology. We all may have our opinions, positions, pet ideas. However, I think this is really a case for the IAB to provide serious guidance or for a more global architecture to emerge for the whole digital ecosystem and being supported by an appropriatedly extended model. Best, jfc