Re: IDNA text presentation (was Document Status?)

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:18:27AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> Soobok,
> 
> This note demonstrates an almost-astonishing level of confusion
> and misinformation.  I don't know whether to respond to it or to
> assume that, having run out of technical arguments, you have
> decided to resort to innuendo, conspiracy theories, and ad
> hominum attacks and just start ignoring all traffic from you.

Thank you to decide to respond me. :-)

> 
> Some highlights for latecomers...
> 
> * This WG was originated as an IETF effort.  The charter was
> constructed by people who are still active in the WG, most of
> whom did not (and do not) work for organizations with a strong
> commercial interest in IDN issues.  And it predates MINC by some
> time.
> 
> * My recollection of the early months of MINC was that
> registries and academic institutions were perhaps
> overrepresented, but that interests with particular commercial
> plans that they expected to push into the IETF were not.

This come just from my mistake. 
I know well that MINC was formed in 2000, about
one year  later after IDN WG begins.
I just pointed to that pre-MINC IDN community around the world.
I know what was going on at the time. but i won't say much
about that here, really.

 
> * While I have often been unhappy with the WG and its processes
> and conclusions, I have seen no evidence of dominance by
> commercial IDN technology interests.  Certainly people with
> those interests have participated --we would be in bad trouble
> and out of touch with reality with they did not-- but I don't
> believe their interests have been dominant at any stage.  It is
> interesting to note that few, or none, of the authors of the
> important documents come from such companies.

I used "biased in favor of" and  that does not mean someone "work for" some
company. Without any money/salary involved, someone may favor one solution
over others for purely techincal reasons ("that idea is my inception!" and the
like).  Still i feel unhappy with the WG, as you often did. Why so?
I feel string pressure to hasten up the standardization process for a year, 
But, IETF/IESG seems not to follow the pressure. That's why i am still here now.


> 
> * I don't have any idea what you are talking about when you
> describe Jefsey as a "regular @LARGE member".  We are all here
> as individual experts.  Jefsey brings an historical perspective
> that is different from that of most IETF participants (and that
> is, I believe, factually wrong in many important respects).  I
> believe that all such perspectives are useful.  But he is coming
> in quite late to these discussions and I don't believe he has
> yet raised an issue that was not raised by someone when the
> documents were still under development.

I just tried to point out that trying to quenching discussion by chairs 
is not desirable. I have allergy with blunt "out of scope!", really.
That seems to have made me upset and mad in this thread.


> 
> * I can barely parse your paragraph about ISI, who "paid for"
> the Internet, etc., but, to the extent to which I understand it,
> I think it is largely incorrect as well.

Yes, i have some bad memeory about the early history of DNS.
But the meaning what i try to carry will be clear, whether or
not you and all accept it or not. If DNS is not ours, why am i
here ?

> 
> I could go on, but I think it would be pointless.  Let's focus
> on the issues and stop constructing theories about where things
> have come from as a substitute for that focus.   Such theories
> are, especially at this stage in the process, fairly useless
> even if 
> they are correct.  And yours, in the note below, do not appear
> to be correct.
> 
> Fortunately, we are in agreement about your last paragraph.

That is why i am still here. :-)

Soobok Lee

> 
> regards,
>         john
>