Subject: [iucg] Appeal to the IESG concerning the approbation of the IDNA2008 document set.

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:22:31 +0100

This is a "private" issue, but I wish to thank all those who 
cooperated for two years to permit the 145 pages of this appeal.
http://iucg.org/wiki/100310_-_JFCM_Appeal_to_the_IESG
At least, no one will be able to say that I did not warned that we 
are dangerous ....

Here is the mail I sent to the IETF Chair who helped a lot (not our 
ideas, not his role, but our practical capacity to discuss and 
document them what is his pride).
jfc

PS. This document is not perfect and we will probably have to review 
it if we have to ask IAB its guidance through an appeal. But I takes 
time. So, I apologize for having far less active than usual during 
the past weeks. My objective now would be to focus on developping and 
testing, to prepare a test deployment of the Interplus. This would 
permit to document the Interplus as something which does exist rather 
than just concepts that people could try to use to make money.

------

Dear Chair,

please find enclosed the text of the appeal concerning the 
approbation of the IDNA document set by the IESG.

Basically this appeal documents that IDNA2008 enlight capacities and 
principles that are built in the Internet technology but that were 
not used. This is a great thing. However the IESG has not included a 
disclaimer on top of these documents, nor foreseen how and where the 
necessary IDNA user-side issues are to be discussed and documented. 
This may lead people like me to unpredictably toy with them without 
any established Adminance (governance of the tools to be managed by 
the Governance) arrangement, or organizations like ICANN to engage 
into inappropriate testing.

The document size is impressive. There are three reasons to that:

- the impact on the Internet usage architecture is potentially impressive
- the change is not in the technology, but in the way to consider the 
technology and the way it addresses multiplicity. IDNA2008 is about 
pople's multilinguization while IDNA2003 was about Unicode's 
globalization. This is a big change that multilinguists can discuss. 
However, everyone has to understand it simplifies the complexity of 
handling multiplicity (RFC 3439 - principle of simplicity) in 
conformance with RFC 1858 to do it at fringes. RFC 1958 also advises 
to keep the first solution when it works.
- the third reasons is that I do not want to be accused of not having 
checked my rationale for Interplus and further Intersem work. NB. I 
call Interplus is what I think Internet needs to be able to fully 
support the Intersem (that the IDNA2008's approaches simplifies), and 
the Intersem is what IDNA2008 introduces: the capacity for brain to 
brain interintelligibility.

The document is also maintained as a wiki under 
http://iucg.org/wiki/100310_-_JFCM_Appeal_to_the_IESG.

Best regards.
JFC Morfin