-- The proposed working group does not concern the Multilingual Internet, but the adaptation of the IDNA solution. This should be clearly stated in the Charter (it is indirectly said by the fact that if the proposed updates to IDNA are not accepted, the Working Group is dissolved).
-- This project should describe at first its starting position in the framework of multilingual Internet - with regard to langtags and to their register(s) and its position with regards to the ISO standard of the administrative and normative multilingualism (ISO 3166). This would better allow the members of the WG to decide of the aptness of its solutions.
-- I contribute within the framework of the MLTF to the study of alternative solutions as regards what we call more generally the IDNS (Interoperable DNS). The priority does not appear to us the support of an aimless "internationalization" for its own sake, but interoperabilty based on a universalization or a polynymy respecting the infrastructure of the DNS from which can be built a homogeneous and convergent multilinguistic support (DN, URN, e-mail addresses mail, what we call the semantic addressing, repositories).
-- It seems to me that the responsibility taken in the name of the IETF is too important. If this WG fails, this will mean that another SSDO will have to resume the subject and build the Multilingual Internet, or that it will be built in a disorganised manner. A CYA attitude would seem raisonable and that this responsibility is not taken solely by the IESG, but by the consensus of the concerned parties and stakeholders: ICANN, GAC, ccTLDs, IAB, IRTF, ITU, IGF / WSIS, MINC, ISO, ICC, UNESCO, ALAC.
Respectfully.
LB
----
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf