Re: [idn] IDNA text presentation (was Document Status?)

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

Soobok,

This note demonstrates an almost-astonishing level of confusion
and misinformation.  I don't know whether to respond to it or to
assume that, having run out of technical arguments, you have
decided to resort to innuendo, conspiracy theories, and ad
hominum attacks and just start ignoring all traffic from you.

Some highlights for latecomers...

* This WG was originated as an IETF effort.  The charter was
constructed by people who are still active in the WG, most of
whom did not (and do not) work for organizations with a strong
commercial interest in IDN issues.  And it predates MINC by some
time.

* My recollection of the early months of MINC was that
registries and academic institutions were perhaps
overrepresented, but that interests with particular commercial
plans that they expected to push into the IETF were not.

* While I have often been unhappy with the WG and its processes
and conclusions, I have seen no evidence of dominance by
commercial IDN technology interests.  Certainly people with
those interests have participated --we would be in bad trouble
and out of touch with reality with they did not-- but I don't
believe their interests have been dominant at any stage.  It is
interesting to note that few, or none, of the authors of the
important documents come from such companies.

* I don't have any idea what you are talking about when you
describe Jefsey as a "regular @LARGE member".  We are all here
as individual experts.  Jefsey brings an historical perspective
that is different from that of most IETF participants (and that
is, I believe, factually wrong in many important respects).  I
believe that all such perspectives are useful.  But he is coming
in quite late to these discussions and I don't believe he has
yet raised an issue that was not raised by someone when the
documents were still under development.

* I can barely parse your paragraph about ISI, who "paid for"
the Internet, etc., but, to the extent to which I understand it,
I think it is largely incorrect as well.

I could go on, but I think it would be pointless.  Let's focus
on the issues and stop constructing theories about where things
have come from as a substitute for that focus.   Such theories
are, especially at this stage in the process, fairly useless
even if 
they are correct.  And yours, in the note below, do not appear
to be correct.

Fortunately, we are in agreement about your last paragraph.

regards,
        john


--On Thursday, 05 September, 2002 01:52 +0900 Soobok Lee
<lsb@postel.co.kr> wrote:

> Personally, i appreciate Jefsey's, as one of regular @LARGE
> member, showing interests in tough IDN technical details and
> its implications to end user  experiences.  I hope more @LARGE
> members to come here and look into various  aspects of IDN
> deployments and its cost and social effect issues that are 
> relevant to consumer interets.
> 
> As far as i know, this WG (and the chairs) had been originated
> from IDN WG of  MINC which was a consortium of commercial IDN
> vendors. This WG , as i feel  for one year of regular
> participation, has been biased in favor of  commercial IDN
> vendors and their agendas. of course, some participants have
> stand on the comsumer/end user side and tried to neutralize
> this WG.
> 
> Don't be disappointed at hearing "out of scope!" sometime from
> someone. When DNS and the internet came out from ISI labs and
> later from US boundaries, DNS become the internationally
> shared, unique and precious resources. Every internet user in
> the world has sole rights to see mature and long-term safe 
> solutions for IDN, because they paid for the internet and its
> standards technologies.
> 
> Fortunately, this WG discussion is open and I believe IESG and
> IAB would oversee IDN standardization for the interest of the
> public, not for some commericial driving forces of IDN.
> 
> Soobok Lee
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:48:13PM +0800, James Seng wrote:
>> Most are threads here are over (a) the content (b) the
>> direction (c) the abstraction (d) the technical specification
>> etc. Many of them are religious in nature, an
>> 
>> Your thread, however is the only one I seen (or heard) from
>> all who has read the draft to say they dont understand it.
>>...