Re: Browser IDN display policy: opinions sought

I am responding to Vint and Martin in the same mail because the
response proceeds from the same idea. Gervase is outside of the IETF
scope: why and hence what is the border of that scope and its implications.

IESG and IAB have clearly explained that the points discussed by my
2010 appeals were outside of their scope. This is why the BoF that
they proposed for me to engage was inappropriate. This is also why I
relied on the IAB roadmap for them to sort out their own definition of
the upper-border of their area. I needed before I would engage in the
documentation of the scope of the communication stratum above, what I
call the semiotic and the semantic layers of the Intersem extending
the OSI communication model to intercomprehension.

At 08:38 12/12/2011, Vint Cerf wrote:
>as ugly as it might be, I wonder whether showing both UNICODE and
>PUNYCODE expressions would be useful? By itself, this might not reveal
>a spoof unless one had bookmarked domain names against which to
>compare, of course. If the viewer does not have an appropriate
>font/script, of course, then only the PUNYCODE is displayable to any
>useful effect. Again, one would need reference points to detect a
>spoof.

Vint,

In "IUser" the "I" stands for many things: IETF, International,
Intelligent, Intertechnology, Internet+, etc. and "lead" (as in "lead
user"), but *not* for the Internet as such (and absolutely not for
ICANN), because it may not be the only infrastructural system
(infrasystem) being used to support their relational space.