I have refrained myself from participating in this discussion so far but it
got to a point where i feel there is a need for clarification.
a) Discussion here assumed that balkanize of the Internet = IDN.
Why so? Probably because IDN is bring something most people here
not able to understand. I have no intention to argue to those who based
upon "if I dont understand it, you are balkanizing" since it is probably
pointless self-centric argument.
However, what is important to clarify is that IDN WG is not trying to
balkanize the Internet. In fact, we are trying to do the reverse, ie,
prevent the balkanization by defining an interoperable standard for IDN.
Put it this way: There are probably worst method to define IDN such as
letting the Industry determine it...
b) I can see Ohta-san back on the topic of IDN and LDN (I18N vs L10N).
Once again, I can go on a long argument with the choice of names,
OR; I can go on and do something more productive. I choose the latter
since in some sense, there is no differences in that we are trying
to introduced non-ASCII characters into domain names. Call it what you
like.
c) The IDN WG is making huge progress in the little time we have and
the pressure. There are two design team working on the protocol and
something called "nameprep" in IDN termiology.
I have no presumation on when we can finish our work but I hope soon.
For those interested, http://www.i-d-n.net/ is the official WG site.
d) IDN is one of the latest I18N thing to hit IETF. It is not the first
and I am sure it is not the last. It is important for IETF as a whole
to think how to deal with I18N in general.
There is no point taking all these attempts as threat of balkanization.
Rejecting them in IETF would only results these to be done elsewhere.
I have no opinion whether doing in IETF or outside IETF is 'better'
but that it is a choice we all in IETF have to made. There is no right
or wrong but whether you like it or not, it is coming.
-James Seng