Subject: [idn] idn wg proposed agenda

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:01:04 -0500

Hi,
 James and I are proposing this agenda for the wg. This is a first version, 
please sent your comments to james and I.
Because we are late, I sent it to [email-masked]. I'll update it with your 
comments.

Marc.

==============================================
Proposed Agenda, v1.0

IDN wg meeting
MONDAY, December 10, 2001
1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I
Grand D INT idn Internationalized Domain Name WG *

Goal of this meeting:
 build concensus on the remaining items for the architecture

Agenda
 1. wg documents status: 15 min.

 2. draft-ietf-idn-lsb-ace-02.txt: 10 min.
  summary of wg electronic strawpoll and decision.

 3. discussion on next steps for:
  draft-ietf-idn-jpchar-01.txt
  draft-ietf-idn-hangeulchar-00.txt
  draft-ietf-idn-tsconv-02.txt

  TSCONV, Kenny Huang, 10 min.
  How to handle tsconv/jpchar/hangeulchar, To be confirmed, 10 min.
  Discussion and decision, 20 min.

 4. draft-hall-dm-idns-00.txt
  discussion on next steps, 10 min.

 5. WG next steps, 10 min.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:39:14 -0500

Marc,

Discussion of drafts was shortened at IETF-51 "to leave room for consensus
building". This meeting has "build consensus" as its goal. I'd like to see
a little less on consensus and a bit more on comprehension.

15 minutes for document status is 10 or more poorly used minutes. The list
is adequate for this task.

10 minutes on next steps is 10 or more poorly used minutes. The list is
adequate for this task.

I'd like to see the assertion of complexity (in the context of reordering)
seriously made in the IDNA context.

Eric

---

From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:18:44 -0800 (PST)

Marc,

do any of these drafts have the support of more than 7 folks in the
working group?

>   draft-ietf-idn-lsb-ace-02.txt: 10 min.
>   draft-hall-dm-idns-00.txt

I didn't attend London, but I'm tired of attending nearly useless IDN
meetings. Having time allotted to little review sessions of drafts that
have little or no support is a real waste of everyones time.

We have allot of market pressure to finish but our chairs apparently don't
see the value in closure.

I recommend the chairs rethink the agenda removing the drafts without
serious support and allot as much time as possible to discussion. Please
trim down the time allocated to "next steps" and "document status."

We need to bring some closure to this or the registries will do it for us.

-rick

Rick Wesson
CTO, DNSO Registrars Constituency

---

From: "xiang deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:26:26 +0800

Hello Marc:

How about do a small correct?

The draft is draft-ietf-idn-tsconv-03.txt.
Because it's the current consensus.

Thanks
Deng xiang

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:34:50 +0800

> have little or no support is a real waste of everyones time.

draft within the pool all have indication of 7 supporters. Please refer
to http://www.i-d-n.net/ if you wish to see the list of supporters.

> see the value in closure.

Market pressure is only one of aspect the aspect the group have to
consider. It may be significant to you but not be so to others.

The job of the chairs is to gather rough consensus and move them
forward. And the advises Marc and myself got is to "take as long as it
takes to get rough consensus but not one day more".

If your complains is that the group is not reaching rough consensus fast
enough for your market demand, then the complaint should be directed to
the group, not the chairs.

If you think there is rough consensus but the chairs, for some reasons,
is not moving it forward, then please provide your proof.

Otherwise, justify your accussation that the chairs "apparently don't
see the value in closure", or withdraw it.

-James Seng

---

From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:19:10 -0800 (PST)

james,

> consider. It may be significant to you but not be so to others.

james, its a flag you and your company have waved for a long time you
understand the situation better than most; infact doesn't idns.net profit
from the current market conditions? well, i guess we all do too, but we
still need to resolve IDN.

> takes to get rough consensus but not one day more".

the job of the chair is about process. and I'm saddened that our chairs
are either not involved in one case or in the other have to post from an
account titled 'Personal' to instill personal comments.

you are the chair james, now stand up, build consensus and lets moving.

> the group, not the chairs.

my complaint has to deal with process and a chair thats not providing
enough direction.

> is not moving it forward, then please provide your proof.

ouch, no, I think we have gone way off course and too often off topic.
we need the boat piloted but the captain keeps fishing.

> see the value in closure", or withdraw it.

james, i don't have to; either you will prove my point by not building
consensus and not moving us closer and loosing us in a miriad of
presentations of drafts we all should have read
 -or-
you will help move this working group forward by providing time for
discussion instead of a litany of draft presentations

its time the rubber hits the road, james, and we make some decisions, and
to do so we need time for debate.

-rick

---

From: "ben" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:44:16 -0500

Hi Rick,

From: "Rick H Wesson" <[email-masked]>

> still need to resolve IDN.

I have often asked, "how is it possible for people to delay the
progress of this WG by simply posting up messages or writing drafts?"

So I ask a similiar question, "how is it possible for the chair to
delay the progress of this WG for his own benefit?"

Long long time ago, a very wise and old man in China said something
very wise that can be roughly translated as... "you can only bring the
horse to the water, but you can't make it drink."

Thanks,
Ben

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 21:55:10 +0800

Rick,

Pointless arguments, especially your comments on my company is totally
irrelevant to this working group. If you have constructive things to
say, then bring it out. Attacks on the chairs, the group, or your
competitors here is not what I expect an experience IETFer like yourself
would do.

But it would be totally irresponsible for the co-chairs to declare rough
consensus, when we there is none yet, just to prove you wrong. So don't
count on it. It does not work that way and vice versa.

-James Seng

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 14:26:32 -0500

Ben, Rick, and anyone else relevant:

I've seen no evidence that James's behavior is motivated by
either his own or his company's profit motives, and some
evidence to the contrary.  It is legitimate to question whether
he (or Marc) are making the best decisions.  But, unless you
have real evidence of self-interested misbehavior, let's stop it
with this type of personal attack.  Or, if you do have such
evidence, please bring it to the attention of the ADs who, I'm
sure, would deal with it appropriately.

   john

--On Thursday, 06 December, 2001 08:44 -0500 ben
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> james, its a flag you and your company have waved for a long
>> time
> you
>> understand the situation better than most; infact doesn't
>> idns.net
> profit
>> from the current market conditions? well, i guess we all do
>> too, but
> we
> So I ask a similiar question, "how is it possible for the
> chair to delay the progress of this WG for his own benefit?"
> 
> Long long time ago, a very wise and old man in China said
> something very wise that can be roughly translated as... "you
> can only bring the horse to the water, but you can't make it
> drink."
> 
> Thanks,
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 22:55:57 -0800

This note is about working group progress.  It is not about anyone's 
motivations or, for that matter, anyone's previous actions.

As an aside, I'll note that the IETF is frankly designed pretty well to 
literally ignore individual motivations.  Our transparency and process 
checks are quite good.

If someone tries to be manipulative for their own benefit, they can only 
succeed if the rest of us let them.  At that point, the fact that the 
individual was working in their self interest is no longer 
relevant.  Because the rest of us agreed.

To be explicit:  I am, quite pointedly, not stating or implying anything 
about motivations of any IDN participant.  Motives simply do not matter.

Only working group actions matter.

>have little or no support is a real waste of everyones time.

Let's be clear about appropriate use of the very short time available for 
face to face IETF meetings:

         IETF MEETINGS ARE NOT FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW.  IETF MEETINGS
         ARE NOT FOR TEACHING.

         IETF MEETINGS ARE FOR RESOLVING OUTSTANDING DESIGN ISSUES
         AND SPECIFICATION DETAILS.

It is fine for people to attend meetings when they have not read the 
draft.  However it is not acceptable to spend such incredibly scarce time 
for educating them.

One more time:

         IETF MEETINGS ARE FOR RESOLVING ISSUES SO THAT
         SPECIFICATIONS ARE ABLE TO ADVANCE.

>consider. It may be significant to you but not be so to others.

It is significant to the IETF.

Attendees who do not care about market pressure are free to indulge in 
research debates in a research environment.  Not the IETF.

>forward.

Forgive me, James, but you listed two requirements.  Forward progress IS 
required.

And you correctly included the word "rough".

Rough consensus is not the same as unanimous consensus.

It does not permit a small minority to hold veto power over the rest of the 
group.

>  And the advises Marc and myself got is to "take as long as it

Alas, my own assessment is that IDN has already taken a significant number 
of MONTHS more.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464