Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01]

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

Patrik,

As you (personally) are seeking an assertion without a mechanism for
validation, what you seek is not technical, and out of scope for a
working group. Technical liaison is necessary for a working group
attempting correctness, however, a bureaucratic liaison is not, and is
in the domain of the IAB, which may be random persons, or it may not be,
but that's NomCom's business.

See rfc2850, 2 (f), "Extenal Liaison".

The co-chairs of IDN have more than enough to do, with the limited means
they have, without attempting to also perform some opportunistic function
of the External Liaison, even at the request of document editors, who are
themselves no doubt acting in good faith.

The statement "the wg need a statement from JET" is "true" if the WG chairs
find that rough consensus exists to require some statement. This "truth"
however is still at odds with the External Liaison responsiblities of the
IAB. As co-chair of ENUM are you responsible for the institutional relation
with the ITU? That is the issue as I see it, a transient WG as the holder of
a fragement of an ongoing relationship, or the ongoing IAB as the party that
has that ongoing, and unified, relationship.

It doesn't help that you want an assertion without a mechanism for validation,
as a tossed coin is usually sufficient for that limited, and uninteresting,
end.

Eric