Re: [idn] report of the straw poll

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

It looks like we have a 3 week reprieve on RACE going into .com.

> To All IDN Registrars:
>
> Based upon recommendations from ICANN, VeriSign GRS is delaying the
> start of Resolution Phase 3.3 for three weeks.  The deployment date
> for Resolution Phase 3.3 is now scheduled for June 19, 2001.
> VeriSign GRS regrets the lateness of this notification.

-rick


On Sat, 26 May 2001, James Seng/Personal wrote:

> To add another point, which we may/may not want to consider valid:
>
> Verisign is moving ahead to put RACE into their .COM zone would means
> wide deployment of RACE and also applications (or servers) to be
> developed to support resolutions. They may or may not be IDNA or even
> close to the what we like to be.
>
> But the fact that this is happening is somewhat of a concern as it may
> undermine the work we are doing in this Working Group as it *might* lead
> to an industry driven protocol.
>
> -James Seng
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Davis" <markdavis34@home.com>
> To: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@imc.org>; "Dave Crocker"
> <dhc@dcrocker.net>
> Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 1:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [idn] report of the straw poll
>
>
> > This is clearly urgent.
> >
> > 1) There is a vast pent-up demand for this, as evidenced by the number
> of
> > registrations at the Verisign test bed and other places. (I suspect
> that if
> > the English speakers on this list had been forced to write URLs with
> > Cyrillic characters all their lives, they would have more of a sense
> of
> > urgency also ;-)
> >
> > 2) The delay is just producing dozens of incompatible ad-hoc
> 'solutions',
> > all getting more and more entrenched. (From the outside, it does not
> appear
> > that the debate on this list has been particularly productive for some
> time,
> > in that there is little evidence of people changing their positions
> due to
> > the discussions.)
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net>
> > To: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@imc.org>
> > Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:00
> > Subject: Re: [idn] report of the straw poll
> >
> >
> > > At 08:54 AM 5/25/2001, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> > > >The WG chair didn't seem to declare "rough consensus",
> unfortunately. The
> > > >poll showed one strongly-favored choice and a vast smattering of
> other
> > > >choices with none having even 10% of the support. Is
> > >
> > > Bill Semich's concern that 'yes' got only 36 votes has some appeal,
> > > although the normal IETF view is that we only consider the concerns
> and
> > > desires of those who show up.  We cannot guess the desires of people
> who
> > > did not participate in the straw poll.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, the 36 was less than 2/3 of the vote.  My
> personal
> > > approximation between "rough consensus" a percentage is not less
> than 2/3,
> > > because having 1/3 of a group disagree with a decision is simply too
> > strong
> > > a constituency to have unhappy.
> > >
> > > As to how to proceed, I wonder whether we should first resolve the
> > question
> > > of urgency.  Although it is beyond my comprehension, a number of
> people
> > > seem to believe that there is little urgency.  Perhaps we should
> assess
> > > working group view of urgency.  If there is consensus about urgency
> THEN
> > we
> > > can try to consider what solutions are amenable to quicker
> deployment.
> > >
> > > d/
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> > > Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> > > tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>