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

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:18:54 +0200

Forwarded from Elisabeth Blanconil qui n'avait pas copié l'IUCG
Le sujet me parait important.
jfc

-----

Dear Tina,
My concerns have no more to do with the WG-IDNABIS mailing list than 
Vint's using ICANN anouncements as a pressure on an IETF WG.

I am interested - as every Internet @large people (i.e. internet at 
large lead users, those who have the capacity to "make the Internet 
used better") who accepted to give a try to JFC's stabilization by 
coopetition strategy - to continue to patiently coordinate with the 
IETF and ICANN. (My kind mail was a safety valve in that end, please 
remember @larges do have the capacity to make the Internet used 
better in concertation (European meaning), cooperation, coopetition 
or competition.

But this has to be both ways.
- you recall how ICANN has welcome france@large,
- you recall how many of our people have been banned from this WG
- I hope you do measure how much Vint's mail quoting ICANN as a 
pressure on a WG IETF sounds hurtingly 4USIP (Four US Internet 
points: Internet is (1) rooted in the Oval Office, (2) globalized by 
Unicode, (3) owned by Google, and (4) sold by ICANN)

I understand you have a mission. Please understand we have a target : 
an equal, toll-free, neutral, multilingual, innovative people centric 
intersem. JFC wanted us first to try to accomodate the two of them 
together. My personal PoV (Jefsey is traveling today) is that Vint 
made it bluntly too difficult again.

This is because many of us feel the "fast T'ack" process:
* does not belong to their vision of the ICANN international charter,
* does not meet IETF/ICANN community testing standards,
* now introduces the UNGEGN as a confusing intruder for the Internet stability
* depends on what the actually finalized IETF architecture will be, 
after the WG/LC and IETF/LC once approved the IESG.
* depends on ICANN's international standing by 10/01we ignore and may oppose.

Kind regards as well.
Marie-France Berny

2009/9/10 Tina Dam <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]>

Dear Marie-France Berny,

I don't think your concerns with the ICANN processes have much to do 
with the IDNA mailing list. I am happy to talk to you about your 
concerns about the fast Track process and the status announcement 
off-list if you are interested. Please contact me directly.

Kind regards,

Tina Dam

Sr. Director, IDNs

ICANN

Cell: +1-310-862-2026

Office: +1-310-301-5838

Tina

From: 
<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked] 
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marie-France Berny
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:20 AM
To: Vint Cerf; Lisa Dusseault
Cc: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]; 
<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]; internet 
users contributing group; <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
Subject: Re: ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track 
Process Implementation

Vint,
you will permit me to kindly but firmly protest. For two reasons:

1.  Three of us were banned and my father quitted because they only 
alluded to the need of interoperability with the users contributed 
ML-DNS exploration. Here you quote a pure political project which has 
far less technical interest than Project.FRA and Multilinc. These two 
projects have defined R&D objectives and want to be the two 
operationnal experiences required by the IETF in its standardization track.

2. this ICANN document is VERY embarassing and I think we should 
clarify through the IETF/ICANN and IETF/ISO liaisons. This memo 
transfers the ICANN interest in the internet to the political sector: 
until now (Tymnet 1978 agreement, RFC 920, RFC 1531, ICP-1) the 
reference for the international network was the ISO 3166 standard, 
accompanied by the ISO 639 and ISO 10646 series in this WG area and 
the ISO 639-6 mainteneer participate to this WG.

The ICANN's call upon the UN competence, without even a reference to 
the WSIS ad-hoc structure is an important change to the understanding 
of the Internet and to the UN consensus. The Users, politically 
through the Civil Society and technically through the IUCG, will most 
probably question this as they we have no liaison and no say in 
there. As long as the UN is concerned the Internet adminance 
(administrative and technical governance) belongs to the scope of its 
enhanced cooperation decided by the WSIS and ICANN prevented so far. 
In this enhanced cooperation regalian, civil, private, international 
and normative interests are authoritatively present.

The Internet standardisation process MUST stay centralised within the 
IETF. This is what IESG implied in responding to JFC's appeal and why 
the IUCG was established as non-WG IETF mailing list and not as an 
UN/WSIS enhanced cooperation. I think we MUST professionnally finish 
the WG/LC and document set review process, in adressing each and 
every point this WG has listed and we compiled in 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-wgidnabislc-00.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-wgidnabislc-01.txt. 
Then we should be able to go as quickly/seemlessly as possible 
through the IETF/LC (could ICANN proceeed if the IDNA document set is 
disputed at the IETF?), once the script metadata support issue - 
typified by the French majuscules - is resolved, most probably in 
cooperation with Unicode or through an ISO NWIP.

I think that the Project.FRA team will do its best to document the 
interplus "better internet usage architecture" within the same time 
windows (but we need the whole 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-wgidnabislc-00.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-wgidnabislc-01.txt 
to be addressed first). We were the first to ask this WG to consider 
the 9/9/30 date including for the very reasons you give now. We were 
rebuked by several.

I wish also to say that I am surprised after so many linguistics 
issues have been debated by engineers in this WG, we might accept 
that politics and lawyers come and decide that the "few" linguistics 
aspects of IDNA only relate to ISO 3166 issues (that ICANN should 
already addressed for a long [and I understand have been positively 
answered] through its - I hope active - participation within the ISO 3166/MA.

IMHO, but I may be wrong, the internet technology should not be the 
result of a competition between merchants and users?

Marie-France Berny

2009/9/10 Vint Cerf <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]>

ICANN is moving ahead. I would like to submit final I-D's to IESG in 
the next few days if possible.

Editors:

what is the status of each of your documents in terms of absorbing 
inputs from last call?

What issues do you need me, as chair, to provide guidance for, if any?

thanks

vint

Begin forwarded message:

From: ICANN News Alert 
<<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]>

Date: September 9, 2009 7:35:58 PM EDT

To: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]

Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track 
Process Implementation

<http://www.icann.org/>Error! Filename not specified.

News Alert

<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09sep09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09sep09-en.htm

----------

Status Update: IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation

9 September 2009

ICANN is pleased to provide the following status report on the 
progress of implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. 
Overall, the implementation is tracking to the project plan and it is 
planned to be submitted to the Board during the ICANN meeting in 
Korea, Seoul, 26-30 October 2009. Discussion of the implementation 
plan will continue during the Korea meeting and the plan can be 
amended if a change is indicated. Anticipating positive Board 
consideration, the process can be launch within a very small 
timeframe after the Seoul meeting (in the fourth quarter of 2009).

The proposed Final Implementation Plan will be posted online for 
public review at the end of September 2009, and a new status update 
of the overall implementation will be provided prior to the Korea meeting.

Implementation Update:

·DNS Stability Panel: Interisle has been contracted to form the DNS 
Stability Panel that conducts the technical string requirement 
evaluations for requested IDN ccTLDs. This includes a verification 
that the delegations of new TLD strings will not result in user 
confusion with any existing strings in the DNS. Interisle is 
currently in the process of forming the DNS Stability Panel for Fast 
Track Process String Evaluation and providing on-boarding material to 
panel members.

·Online Request System: the online system through which IDN ccTLD 
requests will be submitted is in the final stages of development and 
testing. The next three weeks will be used: (i) finalize the online 
content (ii) perform a legal review (iii) undertake a live test. As 
part of the live test ICANN has consulted with representatives of 
five countries and invited them to participate in testing of the 
system. Testing includes: submitting a test request in the system, 
processing / qualification by staff, providing feedback on the test 
to participants. These tests will run from the end of September 
through 9 October after which a new status report of overall Fast 
Track implementation will be released.

·Online IDN area: the IDN area online will be revised with an FAQ, 
factsheets, and a manual reference for use of the online request 
system. The new and improved site will be released prior to the Fast 
Track Process launch time.

·Linguistic Processes: there are a few aspects of the Fast Track 
Process that are related to linguists or require the advice or 
statements from experts in writing systems. An important piece of 
this relates to the requested string(s) as a meaningful 
representation of a country or territory name. UNGEGN has agreed to 
support Fast Track participants as needed with referrals to such 
expertise. The referrals will be provided through an ICANN point of 
contact and the method for requesting such expertise will be 
described in the proposed Final Implementation Plan. ICANN plans to 
support to those requiring linguistic assistance.

·Outstanding issues: several topics that has been discussed in public 
comment on implementation proposals of the Fast Track Process since 
the initial draft implementation plan was released on 23 October 
2008. These include: (i) the form of relationship between an IDN 
ccTLD manager and ICANN, (ii) cost considerations regarding 
contribution to processing and TLD support costs, (iii) management of 
variant TLDs. Solutions to these issues have been discussed, and it 
is believed that current opinions or positions of each community 
segment is well understood.

For questions, please contact Tina Dam, at ICANN, at: 
<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked].

----------
<http://www.icann.org/magazine/>Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine

This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to 
<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]. It was sent from: ICANN, 
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You 
can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>Email Marketing by
<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>Error! Filename not specified.

Error! Filename not 
specified.<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9828131&l=6333&s=9CK0&m=260133&c=165637>Manage 
your subscription

Error! Filename not specified.

_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:22:05 +0200

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 [email-masked] 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 <[email-masked]
> > <mailto:[email-masked]>> 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*: [email-masked]
> >     <mailto:[email-masked]>
> >     <[email-masked]
> >     <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> >     *To*: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <[email-masked]
> >     <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> >     *Cc*: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]
> >     <mailto:[email-masked]>>; Patrik Fältström
> >     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>;
> >     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> >     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> >     *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 <[email-masked]
> >>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> >>
> >>         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.
> >>
> >>
> >>         None (I am pretty sure of...).
> >>
> >>           Patrik
> >>
> >>
> >>         [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>[email-masked]