Re: [idn] wg milestones update

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Marc,

Observations:

> May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC

I don't think the [30] discussion will converge and resolve to consensus
in 24 hours.

I do wish -06 were available _before_ being submitted, to the I-D editor,
but especially to the IESG.

> May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol

There are 6,182,148 (Walid), and 5,410,306 (Ydisg).

I don't think the rfc2026, section 10 (IPR) discussions (note the plural)
are identical, or complete, and are unlikely to converge and resolve to
consensii in 24 hours.

Recommendations:

I suggest that we move the date on the requirements draft out a week.

I suggest that we task the ADs to summarize or have summarized the issues
for each of the Ydsig and Walid IPR claims, solicit "proposed courses of
action" for some reasonable period after the summaries are available, and
conduct a straw-poll on the suggested courses of action.

I haven't looked at Walid. I haven't looked at Ydisg. I haven't asked our
(NeuStar) in-house legal team to start to get an opinion from any patent
law firm. I'm sure that the courses of action possible are richer than a
{stop,avoid,overrun} repitoire, however, I'm also sure that we (the IETF)
have more experience specific to this general problem than is possessed in
this, or most any limited charter working group.

I don't know (yet) how to decide. The urgency isn't lost on me, I simply
lack clue. I do know that "haste makes waste", and I trust that everyone
in the haste camp has sufficient clue to avoid waste.

Eric