[I18nrp] FWD: Re: [Idna-update] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Hi.

Since this list --the one set up for the BOF and trying to
figure out how to make progress on i18n issues-- is almost
certainly the one to which Ted's note should have been copied, I
am forwarding it for information and without (at least at this
time) further comment.

As the last part of the note below will make obvious (I was
planning on noting it to this list separately) I decided to
summarize what I believe the discussion was about to the
IDNA-update, EAI, PRECIS, and IAB i18n-discuss lists to lower
the odds that someone who should be participating in the
discussion is accidentally left out of the loop.   

best,
    john


---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 13:04 -0800
From: Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
To: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] [I18n-discuss]
draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues

John,

This is to advise you that I have notified the IESG that I
strongly disagree with this conclusion on the scope of an i18n
directorate; I heard calls for a directorate, not for a body
with different characteristics sharing the name.  I have also
notified them that I object to the formation of a body with a
different remit to the usual "advise the ADs" unless a community
discussion, charter, and discussion of how membership is selected
takes place.

We charter directorates now as advisory bodies to the ADs, and
the ADs bear the responsibility for the related decisions
(taking or not taking the advice as they see fit).  Since the
ADs are selected by the NomCom, how they derive that authority
and its limits are well known.  What you describe below departs
from that, and unless it is made clear what authority is being
granted and how the community is being consulted, I think it is
outside of our process.

Since this amounts to the early stage of an appeal, I have
recused myself from further discussion within the IESG on this
topic.

On the more technical topic of the appropriate status (Standards
Track or Informational) for this document, I will follow up as
you suggest.

Ted

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:19 PM John C Klensin
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Those who attended or watched the IETF 102 BOF in July will
> probably recall that it concluded that a group should be formed
> to provide a focus and expert advice on I18n issues to the
> community.   It was described as a "directorate" because that
> term and organizational arrangement is familiar in the IETF,
> but it was quite clear (at least to many of us) that its
> mission was to advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the
> community on i18n issues, rather than merely advising the ART
> ADs and/or designating people to perform reviews late in the
> Last Call cycle.  Alexey (as the ART AD who is apparently
> taking lead responsibility for this work) has indicated that
> the "directorate" should be organized and announced very soon
> now.
> 
> 



> Because (if nothing else) the document follows up on RFC 6452,
> which was Standards Track, and because the directorate should
> have a chance to come together and review this document and its
> relationship to other pending work, the Last Call has now been
> cancelled (or, I hope more accurately, deferred).
> 
> However, people should be aware of that document, that there
> has been a discussion on the I18Nrp list that is certainly
> relevant to the IDNA list and effort, that includes details
> not covered by the summary above, and may be relevant to the
> other lists copied; that the directorate is expected to be
> announced soon; and that draft-faltstrom-unicode11 and other
> relevant I-Ds, including some expired ones, may soon
> [re-]appear and require review and evaluation.
> 
> At least until Patrik or the ADs suggest otherwise, the
> discussion of draft-faltstrom-unicode11 is on I18Nrp
> (subscription and archive information at
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp )
> 
> Happy reading and reviewing.
> And apologies for not getting this note out when the discussion
> first started up.
> 
>     john
>     (no particular hats other than interested party although my
> hats as ex-EAI Co-Chair and author or contributor to a number
> of relevant RFCs and pending documents are around here
> somewhere)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I18n-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss
> 

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

--- Begin Message ---

John,

This is to advise you that I have notified the IESG that I strongly
disagree with this conclusion on the scope of an i18n directorate; I heard
calls for a directorate, not for a body with different characteristics
sharing the name.  I have also notified them that I object to the formation
of a body with a different remit to the usual "advise the ADs" unless a
community discussion, charter, and discussion of how membership is selected
takes place.

We charter directorates now as advisory bodies to the ADs, and the ADs bear
the responsibility for the related decisions (taking or not taking the
advice as they see fit).  Since the ADs are selected by the NomCom, how
they derive that authority and its limits are well known.  What you
describe below departs from that, and unless it is made clear what
authority is being granted and how the community is being consulted, I
think it is outside of our process.

Since this amounts to the early stage of an appeal, I have recused myself
from further discussion within the IESG on this topic.

On the more technical topic of the appropriate status (Standards Track or
Informational) for this document, I will follow up as you suggest.

Ted

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:19 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Those who attended or watched the IETF 102 BOF in July will
> probably recall that it concluded that a group should be formed
> to provide a focus and expert advice on I18n issues to the
> community.   It was described as a "directorate" because that
> term and organizational arrangement is familiar in the IETF, but
> it was quite clear (at least to many of us) that its mission was
> to advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community on
> i18n issues, rather than merely advising the ART ADs and/or
> designating people to perform reviews late in the Last Call
> cycle.  Alexey (as the ART AD who is apparently taking lead
> responsibility for this work) has indicated that the
> "directorate" should be organized and announced very soon now.
>
>



> Because (if nothing else) the document follows up on RFC 6452,
> which was Standards Track, and because the directorate should
> have a chance to come together and review this document and its
> relationship to other pending work, the Last Call has now been
> cancelled (or, I hope more accurately, deferred).
>
> However, people should be aware of that document, that there has
> been a discussion on the I18Nrp list that is certainly relevant
> to the IDNA list and effort, that includes details not covered
> by the summary above, and may be relevant to the other lists
> copied; that the directorate is expected to be announced soon;
> and that draft-faltstrom-unicode11 and other relevant I-Ds,
> including some expired ones, may soon [re-]appear and require
> review and evaluation.
>
> At least until Patrik or the ADs suggest otherwise, the
> discussion of draft-faltstrom-unicode11 is on I18Nrp
> (subscription and archive information at
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp )
>
> Happy reading and reviewing.
> And apologies for not getting this note out when the discussion
> first started up.
>
>     john
>     (no particular hats other than interested party although my
> hats as ex-EAI Co-Chair and author or contributor to a number of
> relevant RFCs and pending documents are around here somewhere)
>
> _______________________________________________
> I18n-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
IDNA-UPDATE mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

--- End Message ---