My resignation
to NOT DoS this WG. Please wait for the IDNA2008 to be presented to the IETF/LC. The only need for interoperability with any ML-DNS solution/application, of any kind or by anyone, is for the Charter to be respected: i.e. no mapping at the protocol level. 2) Please do NOT claim that there is a COI. There is a simple WG management problem that was created by someone who needs to reread the IETF rules, who in turn thought himself to be exclusive, and now has to tackle an unexpected technical clarification in order to address a problem (missing presentation layer) that many eventually thought was a feature. Google is important for the Internet and we all benefit from it. Moreover, their last quarterly results show that they are confronted with their centralized architecture problem earlier than was expected due to the current crisis. As their users, we now have to accompany them in their very long way to go to the fully distributed people centric architecture that we consensually agreed upon. We, then, were all of the countries of the world, civil society, private sector, public powers, international organizations, and every stakeholder, ... except for the IETF who might have thought that they could tell all of us, forever, the way to spell better in our own native languages. 3) Please do NOT harass ISOC for the way that they want to assume the IETF governance and financing. We have been illegally banned. We were NOT bought out. However, RFC 3935 certainly has to be enhanced. We are interested in discussing an RFC 3935bis BOF. We also have not been banned from ISOC France. Set out to oppose ISOC only if they also expel us, because in so doing you will thereby defend the IETF that we truly believe in and that we have joined through the IUCG: it is not for sale, it is only to serve. Multilingualization is something complex, in which we are now going to work on, in peace. This is because we now know that this WG/IDNABIS is unable to match multilingualization's very prerequisites: to live with others, to be polite, to be respectful, to care and not to expel, to inform oneself, not to repeat the same propositions that did not work, to have some multilingualistic competence and at least some multilateral spirit. We also want to thank all of its members who, kindly or more formally, supported us. We hope that they will pursue and perhaps even complete the job that was described by the Charter. Therefore, someone needs to take this job over now. Who, other than the people and lead users of the world, is better suited for this job? That task will not be easy. However, there is no other way around all this, since ISOC sold the soul of the IETF to its Platinum members, and its Gold members are expelling their competition. I am surprised to have come to sign such a texte after so short a time of duty at the IETF. However, I started to like it - in spite of the egos, blazés, aggressive ones. I want this adventure of thousands of people building a new world with T-Shirts, to survive ISOC sponsors' money, political creeps, commercial priorities, and continue to help us, the users and the people. Xavier Legoff ___ listegenerale mailing list listegener...@franceatlarge.org http://franceatlarge.org/mailman/listinfo/listegenerale_franceatlarge.org -- LB ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
An Internet for the Rich
I am ashamed of myself for being a fool. For years I believed in ISOC, I agreed to come to the IETF in trust, I agreed to support the ALAC because @large are the Internet lead users, I learned about America as the protector of equality on the Internet. Now I see ICANN has been captured and they want/accept an internet for the rich. Where keywords (top-level domain name) will cost $ 100,000 plus expenses. Those who should protect us the users, and defend an Internet for everyone are silent. ALAC does not have time. IDNABIS wants to help ICANN to develop its plan in every languages and cultures. The IETF does not even consider is architectural solutions could help democracy resist moneycracy. -- LB RFC 3271: Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if it isn't affordable by all that wish to partake of its services, so we must dedicate ourselves to making the Internet as affordable as other infrastructures so critical to our well-being. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Dear Colleagues, I'm reading the proceedings of the IETF for the past few months. They surprise me very much. I thought that the IETF was a serious institution seriously publishing serious standards. I realized that his organization is not made for that and I wonder how it can publish something serious : I believe that the Dratf John is serious, but it should not be a new document for us @large to read. It should be an update of SMTP Page in the IETF Internet reference wiki. I also read in detail the appeal of John Klensin. Most of the things he asks seem obvious. And yet he's losing time to document them, and many intelligent minds waste time on it, while the appeal relates solely to the IESG. The real debate will be after the IESG response and before a possible appeal to the IAB. Why not to wait for it. Or is this some kind of pressure ? If I understood correctly, this appeal is not asking to IESG judge, but to document its defence. Would not it be easier to create a WG-IETF, which would be mandated to rebuild a IETF for today where a method, procedures, a logic of work would be automated, with human decision points well documented? This would allow the brains of engineers to worry about the Internet and its users, rather than about internal disputes and the IESG? The appeal would then simply concern the review of the three lines defining the DISCUSS decision point in the IESG page. My idea is it so stupid? -- LB ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action.
Gentlemen, Since I agreed to replace JFC Morfin to the IETF I sent less than ten mails. Most had two abnormal reasons. (a)To explain that I am not JFC Morfin. (b) Because our commercial opponents of our non-commercial approach did not asked, politely or not, before to accuse me of it; and to mock my name as did my primary school classmates very long ago. For their information, we are 5 Louis Blériot to have the phone in France, more than Randy Presuhns (I just got into red list because of him). The one you fear suggested I accept the suggestion of a member of the IESG: I said that I would ask my friends purely technical contributions, as much as possible in the form of Drafts. In order not to waste the time at the IESG. So it seems to me that the current debate, which I do not have much time to spend and who is in a language that I do not master, has two other goals. - Discredit these Drafts in case they would allow the internet to work better. - Protect all the commercial interests by wanting paying members. As if IETF was afraid that the non-profit lead users may join. I see what is happening: one wants to prevent small businesses to speak to the IETF. A single JFC Morfin to protect many's culture, language, occupation, family was already too much for our competitors (who came together to sign the PR-action against him). Now one does certainly not all those he represented! Is that correct IETF? -- LB ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
Cher Russ, The debate about me is depressing. Only signatories to the PR-action against JFC Morfin are interested. They are not very credible. Their doctrine is globalization: internationalization of the medium (Unicode), localization of the terminal (CLDR) and identification of linguistic context (RFC 4646). This approach is consistent with the early structuralist theories of Chomsky. It removes language barriers between IBM and its foreign clients. It is limited in its capacity and number of languages. It is unable of multilingualism (all languages architecturally supported as English). It is incapable to scale towards a semantic internet. You see it with IDNA. I wanted to publish multilingual books according the pedagogy of cybernetic (Wienner, Coufignal, Perret, etc.). It was evident that I did not have to start from the texts in languages, but from the semantics to be expressed in languages. Not being a linguist (I do not speak English: I use Google and Prompt, and I read again so-so) I committed to the vision of JFC Morfin: the approach of enunciation, repositories (MDRS), brain to brain interintelligibility, etc. Errors of the WG-LTU were of principle. The danger was in its vagueness (JFC Morfin made it corrected), confusion towards ISO 3166 (which was corrected last summer at ISO) and in its lack of integration of IDNA (what falls to me after JFC was released from Harald Alvestrand's list). I knew that I would be attacked in IVFT. I thought that this would be based on technical (and I have communicated very little). Not on rather ridiculous ad hominems and word games that we should have passed the age for a very long time. In fact it has been courteous and very nice on the part of everyone except the clique (I think that's the technical term) of our religious opponents. This is why: -- Except further provocations I do not intend to appeal -- I shall not prove my identity separately from all the other IETF -- I will encourage my friends to publish Drafts for testing a multilingual and Semantic Internet without pollution, excluding technical and political pressure, -- If we or our texts are subject to exclusion for reasons not technically documented this will be visible to all. -- LB 2008/3/22, LB [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear Russ, I am not sure what should be the next step and I wish that all is clear and transparent in the management of what I take for a censure for offence of opinion or nationality. I think like somebody else, I use the technical vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in the same mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr. Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG? I used in vain the RFC-Editor find out what was the rule. I found nothing. Mr Presuhn says moreover that there are none. I would also like to know how locate in your archives the cases where the identity of somebody has been challenged within the IETF in such manner and what procedures have been initiated. With my thanks and my best regards -- LB 2008/3/21, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LB: Randy has responded quite publicly. I think his position is quite clear. So, the next step is up to you. Russ At 08:38 PM 3/20/2008, LB wrote: Dear Sir, Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again: (1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or finds a better solution. (2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the RFC 4646bis underway. I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of his current work. In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize willingly and and to inform the IESG about it. I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me. 2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi - There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list, to the proposed metric (and one off-list
Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
Dear Russ, I am not sure what should be the next step and I wish that all is clear and transparent in the management of what I take for a censure for offence of opinion or nationality. I think like somebody else, I use the technical vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in the same mother tongue as another Frenchman. Is it to protest with Mr. Newman or with Mr. Presuhn or to appeal directly to the IESG? I used in vain the RFC-Editor find out what was the rule. I found nothing. Mr Presuhn says moreover that there are none. I would also like to know how locate in your archives the cases where the identity of somebody has been challenged within the IETF in such manner and what procedures have been initiated. With my thanks and my best regards -- LB 2008/3/21, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LB: Randy has responded quite publicly. I think his position is quite clear. So, the next step is up to you. Russ At 08:38 PM 3/20/2008, LB wrote: Dear Sir, Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again: (1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or finds a better solution. (2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the RFC 4646bis underway. I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of his current work. In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize willingly and and to inform the IESG about it. I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me. 2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi - There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list, to the proposed metric (and one off-list objection by JFC Morfin) for identifying possible sock-puppets of those whose posting privileges have been revoked pursuant to RFC 3683. So, we're using it. We engaged the procedure with three independent working group participants. All three identified the same email address, which was also identified by the responsible area director and both co-chairs. Consequently, future postings from [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe this address is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin. Randy ltru co-chair You will understand that I have reached an age where I am not impressed anymore and that I have time for a good cause: -- or Randy Preshun apologizes and it stays there. -- or he has suspended my rights without warning and is preparing for a PR action against me without any reason. He does it with the support of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG. Under these conditions you will understand that I am not to be giving anything that enables them to validate a practice of arbitrary exclusion of the IETF. Today I, whom tomorrow? -- LB ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
Dear Sir, Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject As JFC Morfin got everything we wanted except again: (1) that the WG-IDNABIS quickly demonstrates the merits of IDNA or finds a better solution. (2) that the RFC 4646 is respected by the IESG what also calls for the RFC 4646bis underway. I proposed to replace him as an IETF watcher, given the importance of his current work. In two months, I sent a half-dozen of messages and received courteous answers. Of course I expected a possible ostracism. I was prepared to respond with kind understanding. This was the case with Brian Carpenter. He accused me of being JFC Morfin in an humorous but a way a little hurtful. We exchanged and he had the courtesy to apologize willingly and and to inform the IESG about it. I would have done the same with Randy Preshun if contacted me, even impolitely, even after having ignored my question about a significant breakthrough for us he implied, even after that he probably pushed a trap by misrepresenting our position and that of ISO. Instead, he dashes into a guerilla of racist censorship against me: it is because of the MLTF ideas that he accuses me of not being me. 2008/3/20, Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi - There have been expressions of support, and no objections on this list, to the proposed metric (and one off-list objection by JFC Morfin) for identifying possible sock-puppets of those whose posting privileges have been revoked pursuant to RFC 3683. So, we're using it. We engaged the procedure with three independent working group participants. All three identified the same email address, which was also identified by the responsible area director and both co-chairs. Consequently, future postings from [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be delivered, since we believe this address is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin. Randy ltru co-chair You will understand that I have reached an age where I am not impressed anymore and that I have time for a good cause: -- or Randy Preshun apologizes and it stays there. -- or he has suspended my rights without warning and is preparing for a PR action against me without any reason. He does it with the support of our two direct commercial competitors in his WG. Under these conditions you will understand that I am not to be giving anything that enables them to validate a practice of arbitrary exclusion of the IETF. Today I, whom tomorrow? -- LB ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
I looked carefully at the proposal of a WG to address the lacks of the IDNA solution. My evaluation of multilinguist (study regarding the parallel usage of languages) suggests to me that: -- The proposed working group does not concern the Multilingual Internet, but the adaptation of the IDNA solution. This should be clearly stated in the Charter (it is indirectly said by the fact that if the proposed updates to IDNA are not accepted, the Working Group is dissolved). -- This project should describe at first its starting position in the framework of multilingual Internet - with regard to langtags and to their register(s) and its position with regards to the ISO standard of the administrative and normative multilingualism (ISO 3166). This would better allow the members of the WG to decide of the aptness of its solutions. -- I contribute within the framework of the MLTF to the study of alternative solutions as regards what we call more generally the IDNS (Interoperable DNS). The priority does not appear to us the support of an aimless internationalization for its own sake, but interoperabilty based on a universalization or a polynymy respecting the infrastructure of the DNS from which can be built a homogeneous and convergent multilinguistic support (DN, URN, e-mail addresses mail, what we call the semantic addressing, repositories). -- It seems to me that the responsibility taken in the name of the IETF is too important. If this WG fails, this will mean that another SSDO will have to resume the subject and build the Multilingual Internet, or that it will be built in a disorganised manner. A CYA attitude would seem raisonable and that this responsibility is not taken solely by the IESG, but by the consensus of the concerned parties and stakeholders: ICANN, GAC, ccTLDs, IAB, IRTF, ITU, IGF / WSIS, MINC, ISO, ICC, UNESCO, ALAC. Respectfully. LB ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
