[UA-discuss] 04a Browsers

Thu Aug 31 21:48:43 UTC 2017

Please don't take the following as a response from Mozilla, as I do not
represent them or speak on their behalf, but I can 99% forecast next steps
here and make some suggestions based upon the time I have invested in being
a volunteer with them...

> The reference for Mozilla seems to have been unchanged in 8 years, which
> is a long time. Do you know if anyone at Mozilla has actually looked at the
> issue since then? In particular, I tried changing the settings as described
> there, to allow the open dot, and it didn't.

@Chaals as a member of the community, would you update that stale wiki to
align it with how it currently works?  Clearly, it is likely the wiki has
not been updated in a while due to resourcing or prioritization, and it
obviously has older information that has become incorrect with the
evolution of the actual function/behaviour.

I'm on Mozilla's Policy Advisory Board,

@Christian I am impressed with how many hats you wear.  What do you NOT do
in this industry, man?  Thank you for all you do.  We're all better off for
it.

if you want me to try to escalate it. We just need to narrow things down to
> a simple, discrete ask.

I agree that narrowing things down to simple discrete ask can help -
* I think resourcing Mozilla would be even more effective towards goal.*
*The best path forward would most likely be ICANN-employed UA developers
participating by supplying developers to projects as members of mozilla
community and tackling these issues from within. *
(Perhaps coordination with Gerv Markham, who I connected Don with, and your
PAB affiliations would allow that to evolve?)

Next best (current suggested) is conforming our 'ask' process using their
ticketing system to submit issues into the appropriate conduits for
attention from the community volunteers and developers - this is how they
do business and manage these tens of thousands of development volunteers
globally.

if you could work your politically-smooth mojo in a way that brings the ask
in a different conduit than I have been using... I suspect it will still
flow into the same ultimate constraint point and system that currently have
any tickets that have been submitted - or will be directed to do so..

I would just recommend to be cognizant of coming across as over-assertive
in our asks if we're flowing it through >1 management chain into the same
(current) constrained resource(s).

I don't think the effect would be a punitive reaction, but it could be
counterproductive if the matter moves from its current state of 'we know
this is important to do and have an eye to do it when possible' over to a
'into the bucket with everything else'.
It is a common theme within the development community at large - certainly
irritating to volunteers to have yet more pressure/work while
under-resourced to be reminded of it again by yet another "manager" - help
them help you (hence the resourcing suggestion).

Their ticketing system takes time to understand and work with, and you do
not always get what you asked for, but it is the mechanism in place to flow
the myriad of requests for a myriad of bugfix/feature requests to be
submitted to a myriad of geometrically distributed volunteer developers.

Just like humans have to work the paid workers at the DMV for their process
for their drivers license or have to follow ICANN's mixture of paid
staff/volunteer resourced flow and process for new TLDs or other needs, so
unto us is the Mozilla ticket system for having their
majority-volunteer-resources address things.

Jothan Frakes
Tel: +1.206-355-0230

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Christian Dawson <dawson at i2coalition.com>
wrote:

> I'm on Mozilla's Policy Advisory Board, if you want me to try to escalate
> it. We just need to narrow things down to a simple, discrete ask.
>
> Christian Dawson
> *Executive Director*
> Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2C)
> c:  703 623 2612
> http://i2coalition.com
>
> PGP: 22DF5493
> Fingerprint: 7C95 A3BE 1E10 4864 8417  DCED B9E1 C8FD 22DF 5493
>
> On Aug 31, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Don Hollander <don.hollander at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> We did have some engagement with Mozilla facilitated by Jothan.  But their
> response was for us to file a bug report.
>
> Don
>
>
> On 1/09/2017, at 12:27 AM, chaals is Chaals McCathie Nevile <
> chaals at yandex.ru> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 02:18:54 +0200, Don Hollander <don.hollander at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 04a – A review of popular browsers for UA Readiness – Spoiler alert – most
> are OK, but few >handle the open dot or IDNs as we expect them to.   Some
> browser developers may see this >as a feature and not a bug.
>
>
>
> The document says there is no W3C document talking about open dot. I am
> pretty sure you are right about that - in general W3C defers to IETF RFCs
> for URL definitions, having abandoned its own work on them a few years ago.
>
>
> The reference for Mozilla seems to have been unchanged in 8 years, which
> is a long time. Do you know if anyone at Mozilla has actually looked at the
> issue since then? In particular, I tried changing the settings as described
> there, to allow the open dot, and it didn't.
>
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> --
>
> Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile
>
> find more at http://yandex.com
>
>
> Don Hollander
> Universal Acceptance Steering Group
> Skype: don_hollander
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170831/d13f1bb2/attachment.html>