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

Ajay Data <> Wed, 05 December 2018 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F78130E0E for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id So1aIW8FQuCl for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58802130DC2 for <>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:23:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; q=dns/txt; c=simple/relaxed; t=1543973009; s=xgen;; h=In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Date:Message-ID; z=In-Reply-To:<>|References:<3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB>=20<CA+9kkMAoGT-bnEk0bxieQBwd=3DyM+bvFfV4yyGf9g=>=20<8458F480-52CB-4DD4-9C52-6ED9F2860DFD@nostrum.= com>=20<>=20<=>=20<CA+9kkMC0ioSoRP-7gZ6uEz=>=20<E8C57B36-17DA-4ED2-9E74-6740B=>=20<>=20<C=>|MIME-Version:1.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit|From:Ajay=20Data=20<>|Date:Wed,=2005=20Dec=202018=2006:51:42=20+0530|Message-ID:<>; l=13176; bh=4TMgy2f5+shTJkPBpmI1qYcN5CI=; b=E0Vm+rFWftMwZYNSegU2fqsr/kh4diqrQ85ENpn/gASEzgyakGLK8jiP2WNI4/06 6yBk2cQXpT+Ck5kBeJ9655V/XeCdzYNtOj1X/KnSTWup54hvYGV4UOJzGFRZQek+afp lHthyRn5WB68X7nyWwTxBp3FljO/jJInuh49Np/w=
Received: From[] by [] [] [mta] with SMTP id ../InBoxS/20181205/06/15264.839303134559(1543973007823); Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:23:27 +0000
Received: From[] by [] [DataMailApp-2] [mta] with SMTP id 74893.65664718987(1543973007707); Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:23:27 +0000
Received: From[9c365f6ade93d2ec480c9a39a918d5eb] [] with SMTP id 16059.190583948346(1543972967301); Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:22:47 +0000
User-Agent: XGenPlus for Android
X-Mailer: XGenPlus App Ver 1.70
X_Xgen_Delivery_Report: yes
X_Xgen_Device_Id: 352016090237397
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----491R58XUK1P3JJ108BMQYD10CJUCPA"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ajay Data <>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 06:51:42 +0530
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] [EAI] [Idna-update] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 01:23:38 -0000


On 5 December 2018 05:51:01 GMT+05:30, Vint Cerf <> wrote:
>set up the advisory group and allow it to offer advice to the
>This same advisory group can reasonably share its findings more
>thereby "educating...." the rest of the community. No power to block
>either explicitly or implicitly be inferred by the creation of the
>On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:09 PM Ben Campbell <> wrote:
>> Responding to a couple of points, inline:
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick <>
>> Trimming a bit:
>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> Howdy Pete,
>> Please re-read John's message, which includes this:
>> "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. "
>> As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD
>requesting a
>> review of a specific individual or set of individuals. But John's
>> is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different
>than the
>> usual directorate.
>> Certainly to some small extent all of the directorates "advise,
>> and perhaps even educate the community", as each is willing to do
>> reviews, and some of the advisory groups (like the assorted
>"Doctors") will
>> help a WG when directly solicited by the WG. The fact that those
>duties get
>> a more formal mention in the mission of the i18n directorate doesn't
>> me pause. But what I was responding to was this part of your earlier
>> message:
>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> ...I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an
>> independent authority to foster work or block documents.
>> Like Ben, I see nothing in John's words (or any of the discussions of
>> directorate) that indicate any power to "block documents", let alone
>> other sort of special "independent authority" (beyond what we already
>> experience with). And that seems the real basis for your objection. I
>> perhaps you're tilting at a windmill
>> As an ART AD, my expectation is that the directorates only power to
>> documents  would be to convince a (typically ART) AD to do so.
>> That concerns me, especially if it is meant to have a
>> review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART)
>> directorates do. Soliciting and receiving that advice is the state
>> pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that.
>> John has asserted that it is not *only* that. But the only thing that
>> appears to be beyond that is a group that can, as John said, "advise,
>> inform, and perhaps even educate the community".
>> Given that
>> assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in
>what it
>> is instead.
>> If it had any additional authority, I would agree. It does not appear
>> and therefore I do not.
>> I also am disappointed that the ART ADs did not simply ask the
>> questions of the people that they would or will put on the
>Directorate, if
>> they are seeking the usual sort of advice. There is no power in the
>> coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2. But that is
>> timing question, not a process point.
>> There is no power, but often there is more organization. That seems
>like a
>> legitimate reason for the pause.
>> At the risk of putting words into Alexey’s mouth, I think this was an
>> exceptional case due to the fact that the directorate creation was
>> imminent, but perhaps not so imminent that it could finish it’s first
>> review before the LC ended. It was Alexey’s choice to stop the LC,
>but he
>> might have chosen the same even if he just asked an individual to do
>> expert review.
>> Thanks!
>> Ben.
>> _______________________________________________
>> IDNA-UPDATE mailing list
>New postal address:
>1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
>Reston, VA 20190
>IMA mailing list

Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.