Re: [dnsext] BOF on variants for ICANN San Francisco

Eric Brunner-Williams <> Wed, 09 March 2011 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4AF3A69AD for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:18:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.441
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Izrm9ywBcyFT for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1673A680F for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from limpet.local ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p29HTW6F082287 for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:29:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:19:11 -0500
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <>
Organization: wampumpeag
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] BOF on variants for ICANN San Francisco
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:18:09 -0000

I commend ICANN's staff variant project team for communicating (via 
Kim) a notice to the DNSEXT WG.

I can recall no prior ICANN organized "IDN" activity to which an open 
invitation to the DNS (or IDN) technical community was offered -- 
every such activity I contributed to was due to accidental discovery 
on my part, not an invitation by ICANN.

So that is an improvement.

Unfortunately, the less than useful "variant" nomenclature is used, so 
one has to guess, assuming one differentiates between the issues 
presented by two very large character repertoires with a large 
intersection, character repertoires with sparse sub-repertoires of 
positionally dependent combining characters, character repertoires 
with pervasive diacriticals, or character repertoires with sparse or 
singleton pairs, the actual scope of work to be allocated to ICANN or 
the IETF.

That is a non-improvement.

Unfortunately also, the temporal properties of "synchronized domains", 
the result of some prior, and limited consultation between 
participants to both the IETF and ICANN, is not noted as very 
difficult to achieve and not removed from the possible areas of work 
to be undertaken, at least by an IETF WG.

Of course, absence of mention is possibly an improvement.

If arrangements for remote participation are made, I will participate.


P.S. Leveling both barrels at the innocent civilians presenting their 
l10n work from home using the i18n framework the IDN/IDNAbis WG's 
created ("case studies from different regions that may require variant 
solutions") is not a substitute for communicating policy issues with 
ICANN or a hard to identify ambiguous requirements author. A co-chair, 
you know who you are, please take note.