Subject: Re: [iucg] Updates to Exceptions and BackwardCompatible Sets

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:44:48 +0200

Bingo ! They did it, just in time !!!

16 months ago, JFC explained us that:

* the WG would proceed slowlly, trying to make us look the bad guys.
* that just before the end of the ICANN JPA there would be a blunt
pressure probably using an IETF meeting.
* it would be for a crash packaged wrapp-up including an industry
controlled Classified Character Reviewer using another
IETF-alvestrand.no mailing list.
* this would be to provide an IETF maintenance of a IANA/Unicode IDNA
table and lists.
* that would extend the CLDR locale files to complete globalization
(internationalization, localization, filtering, IDN). The reason why
they refused to discuss IDNs at the WG-LTRU..
* this could even be merged with RFC 4646 alvestrand.no mailing list
so Michael Everson might manage the table, correct Patrick's
suggestions, and offer a lighter-weight process having some real
experience of containing undue requests.

Here it is, clearly introduced within a few minutes, after just
resurecting the "overwhelming" TATWEEL consensus, 10 days before being
the WG is welcomed by .se and .museum, and probably some ICANN, ccTLD,
linguists, "hurluberlus" (US Industry French supporters), ISOC
sponsors good coming support during the week.

2009/7/15 23:26 Wil Tan <[email-masked]>:
> What are the WG's expectations on possible updates to the list of exceptions?

2009/7/15 23:40 Vint Cerf ([email-masked]>:
nominally I think we hope that we will not have to deal with going
from disallowed to contextO. I think the current view is that such
changes should require IETF-level intervention in the near term
although a lighter-weight process might be considered based on
experience. Does anyone see this differently? vint

2009/7/15 23:49 Mark Davis ⌛ <[email-masked]>:
> I think we need to strictly forbid, for stability's sake, any changes in the following direction: Making any change in the other direction should probably require IETF-level intervention in the near term, but as you say, might be made lighter-weight over time. DISALLOWED => CONTEXT* => PVALID, Does this match what you think, Vint? Mark

Sure it does!

Bravo, JFC !!!
I do no not need a france@large consensus call :-). We all waited for
this suggestion !!!. So, we all know the answer by core.

We gave it from the very beginning. We are fully OK as long as this
may be legitimatelly circumvented when needed, meaning there is no
other MUST than to _fully_ support the DNS and that at least the
Reviewer is actually periodically designated by the IESG ("as per
non-applied RFC 4646" [JFC's quote]). Or the suggestion also is, (JFC
says that it could please Mark) that ISO 639, 3106 and 10646 and
Unicode co-chair the Reviewing committee. We just wish a dialog with
the corresponding FLOSS/users approach that may result from our
testing projects.

france@large's position is quite simple: let respect the Charter, i.e.
let not force orthotypography, character (and language) filtering at
protocol level. Question is: is this also what Microsoft and Firefox
want?

MFBerny

PS. Jefsey a gagné son pari ! je n'en reviens pas :-) On lui doit donc
un dîner. Il est à Montpellier, je peux venir de Marseille. Où êtes
vous en vacances d'ici la fin du mois ?

---

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:36:09 +0200

Elisabeth,
the mail of Marie France was internal to the Interplus mailing list. It
discloses our coopetitive strategy at a time when it may not help anyone. I
just got JFC on Skype. He repeats that we should stay quite and leave the US
industry to decide if they respect or not the Charter. This is really not
our cup of tea. If they can help mastering Unicode we will benefit from it
at User Interface or Interplus layers. JFC said he just sent a mail to the
Chair and the AD on all this and sort of apologize for your mail at the end.
This is the IETF, not ISOC France or the cafedu.com mailing list.
Best.
Portzamparc.

2009/7/16 Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>

---

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:09:46 +0200

I apologize for having sent this mail on different maling lists. It
discloses an exchange on another mailing list and and the strategy of
this list. Please disregard it.
Elisabeth Blanconil

2009/7/16 Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>:
> Elisabeth Blanconil