Re: [idn] Update Charter revision 2

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

James,

The changes you propose (and I grant that someone else may have written them
and it just appears under your name as the co-chair of the moment) to the WG
description aren't useful. There are three, the first ("names") is irrelevant,
the second (DNSEXT) is probably wrong (this WG is going to modify DNS??? How
in an IDNA program?), and the third refers to two undefined entities, an "I18N
group" and "other relevant expert group".

The changes to you (see above) propose to the WG goals are also problematic.
You've got the WG turned into an ACE-specific WG. That is consistent with a
rough consensus (I don't mind being "wrong"), but inconsistent with your new
bit in the description section that touts this WG as something that may change
the DNS, outside of the DNSEXT WG. Pick one, but not both.

The proposed deletion of an informational RFC(s) documenting various proposals
and implementations and providing a technical evaluation of the proposals is a
real loss. I guess we'll find out if the IESG is so tired of this mess that it
is willing to conclude "de minimus".

I'm so unfond of the way the requirements draft has been edited that I don't
mind if it never sees the light of day, I don't think it got a close reading
since -07, when John observed that it didn't appear to have ever been the
subject of a close and careful reading.

Overlooking the hand waving, you propose to wrap up the IDN WG in six months.
I have the impression that even with an IDNA/Nameprep/ACE (amc-z) site of
drafts (which I don't support, but that's not the point), that carefully
getting to the point of closure of a WG with a complex problem area would
take sligtly longer -- given that no draft has yet gone to LC (other than
the requirements draft back in February, and possibly more than once since
then, corrections welcome). The experience of the http WG comes to mind.

BTW, your "(bias) summary of reordering discussion" note was the most
constructive thing I've seen you do.

Eric