Re: [iucg] [happiana] New Version Notification for draft-leiba-iana-policy-update-00.txt

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

(as the other former co-chair of ltru)

> From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [happiana] New Version Notification for draft-leiba-iana-policy-update-00.txt
>
> On 2011/09/29 6:35, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
> > The Internet is a part of the whole digital ecosystem (WDE). As such it
> > should converge with other registries documenting the WDE or being used
> > through the WDE. This calls for the IANA to also capitilize on the
> > JTC1/SC32/WG2 experience and study the interest of becoming at least ISO
> > 11179 conformant. This should lead Barry's I_D is to be "ported" into an
> > ISO 11179 context (concepts, terminology, procedures, I/O formats,
> > creation, relation with information provider, graded reviewers, etc.).
> > And then consider how it would better/lesser fit the IANA needs.
> >
> > This was discussed at the langtag registry definition time. The langtag
> > registry by its size is most of the IANA registry. It did not went
> > through beacause the langtag registry was a new registry and the WG's
> > charter did not focus on what ISO 11179 would have brought.
>
> Just for the record, I was co-chair of the responsible ltru WG. It is
> true that the issue of ISO 11179 was brought up on that list by JFC
> Morfin. And as the excerpt below shows, it is true that not all other WG
> participants were a-priori against ISO 11179 conformance, whatever that
> would have meant.

The first reference to 11179 in my records is a posting from L. Gillam
on March 21, 2005, where it was mentioned in passing in a note about what
was happening with various ISO specifications.  The issue of whether
there was a need for the language subtag registry to be 11179 compliant was
added as issue #1027 on June 7, 2005.  The clear WG consensus was that
it was while 11179 compliance might have been a nice thing, it was
also clearly overkill for the needs of the language subtag registry.
Taken in the context of JFC Morfin's overall record in the working
group, I believe that his insistance was widely perceived as part of
a dilatory strategy.

> However, if my recollection and my judgment of the WG situation is
> correct, I think given the general interests in the WG, JFC Morfin would
> have had an extremely hard time obtaining any kind of WG consensus
> towards ISO 11179 conformance even if he had pressed the issue. I can't
> speak for any WG participants in particular, but my guess is that the
> overhead was simply seen as too big, with not enough actual gains.

Numerous postings on (and off) the mailing list directly expressed the
concern that reaching and verifying full compliance with 11179 was not
worth the effort, particularly given the relatively narrow scope of
the language subtag registry.  During the course of the WG's work,
JFC Morfin made numerous attempts to increase the scale and scope of
the work.  If there had been any support for broadening the work to
include all the stuff he wanted thrown in, then use of 11179 might
have made more sense and possibly gotten some support.

Randy