At 14:43 10-03-10, Russ Housley wrote:
The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here:
[snip]
The IESG plans address this appeal in the next few weeks, and the IESG
solicits comments on this appeal from the community. Please send
I will not be able to reply to off-list comments about this appeal.
The document written by the appellant contains what seems to be
lengthy background information. It would have been easier to read if
the usual guidance for RFC style was followed. There is a view that
the probability of the reader understanding the points raised by the
appellant is inversely proportional to the number of pages in the document.
On Page 2, it is mentioned that "the IESG has failed in its
precautionary duty". The argument seems to be the lack of a
disclaimer of liability in the IDNA2008 specifications. I have some
difficulty understanding the notion of "precautionary duty" described
by the appellant.
On Page 3, it is mentioned that the appeal is from an Internet
User. I presume that the appellant means "from an IETF participant".
On Page 6, the argument seems to be about a disclaimer from the
IAB. It is hard to say whether the appellant wants an IESG or IAB
disclaimer. By the way, the mission statement does not cover
publication procedures.
On Page 9, ICANN is mentioned with a quote from what looks like press
release material. I don't see what the IETF can do to change ICANN's
point of view. It may be judicious for the appellant to discuss
about ICANN issues with ICANN. The document mentions confusion
shared by Internet Governance stakeholders. As neither the IESG nor
the IAB govern the Internet, I don't see the relevance. The IETF
obviously doesn't run the Internet or even believes that it runs the Internet.
I presume that the annexes as from Page 21 are to provide background
information.
I'll note that there has been a healthy debate within the IDNAbis
Working Group about the points mentioned in this appeal. I would
describe working group participation as unusual and well above the
average participation as there was representations from people who
are from several countries; some of which do not have English as
their native language. The IDNAbis Working Group brought together
the expertise, as far as it was practical, to tackle such a difficult
and delicate subject. It was a balancing act for the Working Group
Chair to determine consensus. In my opinion, it was done in a fair
and open manner without any hint of exclusion of views that are not
part of the main stream.
Allowing recourse to an appeal is important as there as "there are
times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are
unable to agree". It is not up to me to judge whether this appeal is
reasonable or whether the appellant is knowledgeable about the
subject discussed in the document. My biased opinion is about the
document at hand.
After reading and reading the document again, I could not find any
arguments that points to an Internet Standards Process failure. To
say that I am far from convinced about the technical merits of the
appeal would be an understatement. If the appellant is asking for an
IESG or IAB disclaimer, I do not find any technical reason to support
the inclusion of such a statement in the IDNA20008 document set.
Due to the subjectiveness of presentation layers, I may have missed
what the appellant is asking for. I unfortunately cannot solve
presentation issues that are outside my control. If the IESG
encounters such issues with this document, I suggest that it asks the
appellant to clarify what action is being sought.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf