20090127 - Mail WG/IDNABIS
Un article de Wiki.
- To : Vint Cerf, Google, Chair du IETF/WGIDNABIS
- To : Mark Davis, Google, President du consortium Unicode
- To : Harald Alvestrand, Google, Ancien Chair-IETF, auteur de la proposition bidirectionnelle, Membre du conseil d'Administration de l'ICANN, Membre du conseil d'Administration d'Unicode.
- To : John Klensin, auteur RFC 4690 (problèmes d'IDNA), auteur principal de la proposition courante
- Cc : IETF/WGIDNA
At this time the French Gov has issued an RFP for the replacement of AFNIC as the ".fr" Manager. france@large will answer that RFP. As part of the procedure, candidates can pose clarification questions that the Government will in turn have to answer. IDNA20008 should have been completed by now. Therefore, we (should have asked questions concerning "Internationalization" within the IDNA2008 framework.
IDNA2008 is not completed yet. Therefore, our own IDNA interoperable architecture perspective could also not have been finalized. We are, therefore, going to pose our questions with rather little IETF, IAB, or architectural background about the "Intersem" (Multilingual and Semantic Internet" related issues. These questions will come from French users, consumers, corporations, organizations, representatives, etc.. By way of consequence, Government responses (or lack of) will affect the whole francophonie and create a de facto international position, since ".fr" refrained in the past from developing a solely Anglo-Saxon typography, which the Government would like to see come to an end.
Stephane Bortzmeyer from AFNIC did a good job here. He pointed out some of the problems that we are facing, but showed reasonably low pressure so as to not delay the respective problem solving (the solutions to the discussed mapping cases are good hints for some of our problems). Furthermore, we (users) cooperated in not objecting to what we consider as a clear disrespecting of the Charter and of the responsibility, competence (RFC 3935), and precautionary (cf. my own http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-precaution-00.txt) principle. This was because we fully realized that IDNA cannot, and does not intent to, bring much more than IDNA2003. and not what we consider everyone expect (cf. WSIS, IGF, UNESCO, etc positions). James Seng and the Chair have been very honnest about it.
However, the time has come. AFNIC has not been able to deploy the proper support needed for the French typography as of yet, this being the present case 31 years after the French international datacommunications services were opened. Therefore, I presume that the questions that I will have to list along with the responses that I will thereby obtain (either directly or indirectly) will be politically based upon the (1) best QoS for the users (2) precautionary principle in a global context (3) imaginative architectural alternatives (4) support of the Semantic Addressing, in which we were delaying our proposition in order to be certain that it will be IDNA interoperable.
One question set will necessarily concern the kind of international consensus that will support the French Gov responses that we will publicly receive.
Every suggestion that you could make would be _very_ welcome. The deadline for us is February 7. Concerning interoperability, I will certainly quote, in appendix to my questions, this present mail, along with whatever response and Chair statement that I receive. Obviously the RFP, my questions, and the responses received will all be in the French language.
jfc
