IDNABIS "cerf-control"
From Wikidna.org
This page is under preparation. Its intend is to serve as a neutral repository of the mail exchanges where Vint Cerf decided to expell those wo contributed with a different perspective from his.
Message transféré ----------
From: Xavier Legoff <xlegoff@gmail.com> To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:50:08 +0200 Subject: Re: What should I do? Dear Mr. Chair, Dear Mrs. Area Director, I posed one question: was I or was I not to address the points that I could consider as pertinent the offensive posts written by Mr. Everson, and now also by Mr. Seng. You have not answered that question, but you do list such out in your own way. I will address them in the text shown below. I refer myself to the understanding of the IETF as published by ISOC (we reproduce the relevant parts in Annex). It is indeed, more realistic and accurate than the pure voluntary basis ideal.
2009/4/16 Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>: > Whatever may be motivating you and your colleagues to post on the IDNABIS working group list, The IETF has strong participation from the computing, networking, and telecommunications industries, from companies large and small, and is responsible for developing the Internet’s technical foundations through its open global forum. It is an ISOC affiliate, which is largely supported by its operation of the Public Interest Registry that operates .ORG. In addition, it solicits and receives support from sponsors, including your large company, our small companies, and ISOC sustaining members such as JFC Morfin and some of my other “colleagues” in order to help pay for the cost of operating IETF. IETF is not a profitable activity. It is, therefore, a cost center for every one of us. This means that we have the same motivation and legitimacy as you. Furthermore, the IETF has found that its process works best when it is focused around people, rather than around organizations, companies, governments, or interest groups. Being supported or not by the france@large organization that was created in 2000, we are independent lead users in our own trades, in turn paying for our own time when others are paid for it. It is in this way that we have the independence, competence, and practical capacity to achieve our common goal, which is to make the Internet work better for us and our relations. We prefer this to be achieved through the IETF. This is because we understand that the IETF shares our belief that the existence of a better Internet, and its influence on economics, communication, and education, may help us to build a better human society and lead us all out of the current economic crisis, which partly results from the difference of capital influence within large organizations such as yours, and smaller ones like ours. This is the reason as to why we want to make sure that the IETF produces high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents, because they will influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet to be neutral towards everyone interests. Including those of your company, those of our business, and those of usage. Such neutrality means no discrimination in design, use, and management of the Internet on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. (cf. ISOC)
> it is my frank assessment that continued attempts to argue that the working group As users, we observe four IDNA philosophies in this WG: a. ours. It seeks stability to support open innovation. As such it is minimalist and seeks a strict and coherent protection of the DNS and RFC 1958 principles. b. a position that in some aspects is rather near but that also wants to support IDNA2003. c. a position that tries to conciliate the various needs gathered on what we consider a random basis. d. a position that demands a strict and unique internationalization scheme. We are not very interested in “b” because no francophone TLD supports IDNA2003. We strictly oppose "d" as obsolete and unnecessarily constraining.
> is off charter The WG will stop work and recommend that a new charter be generated if it concludes that any of the following are necessary to meet its goals: (iii) A change to the basic approach taken in the design team documents (Namely: [] elimination of character mapping in the protocol) We completely oppose mapping at the protocol level (including all of what actually can be equaled to mapping to nil).
>or is assuming responsibility that you think an IETF working group should not have We do not say that it should not have it. We say it has no competence or legitimacy thereof. - RFC 3935: Technical competence - the issues on which the IETF produces its documents are issues where the IETF has the competence that is needed to speak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to technically competent input from any source. This WG did not even understand the term “semiotics”, or considered it as off topic. Nothing prevents ISOC from hiring some external experts, but this is not the case yet. When JFC stated that this WG had no linguist, you replied that that was something unfair to say because we had Mark Davis who knows linguists. - RFC 3935: Protocol ownership - when the IETF takes ownership of a protocol or function, it accepts responsibility for all the aspects of the protocol, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen on the Internet. Conversely, when the IETF is not responsible for a protocol or function, it does not attempt to exert control over it, even though it may at times touch or affect the Internet. Languages are mind to mind protocols. Characters and phonemes are their basic information unit. The equivalent of the bit as seen in communications theory (0 1, red/green, short/long). Discussing characters, as this WG does, should involve grammarians. Disallowing a character has the same impact, where this character should be used, as disallowing “1” in an Internet protocol bits. If the IETF enters into this field, it should additionally assume the world's language maintenance. It should, furthermore, be included in the Charter. NB. Our reading of Unicode's contribution is as follows. The WG wants to use it to fix our missing Internet presentation layer problem. It was not designed for that. Therefore, they tried hard to nearly make it just once (this is internationalization) but did not do so with all the multiple flexible diversity as demanded by a transition towards multilingualization. NB. Our reading of the strategic situation can be found in your announced "overwhelming consensus" in favor of this WG disallowing the Arabic TATWEEL character at protocol level and the critics we receive because it is not even French spelling.
- we did not observe that consensus
- engineers have no capacity to change spelling in any language
- disallowing at protocol level is mapping to nil at protocol level and requires a Charter change
- most of all, we feel that everyone following this debate understands that it is a "Lorenz butterfly" and it is likely that TATWEEL may eventually end as a strom which will break the continuity of the Internet neutrality. This is something we do not want to be responsible for.
>or that the working group should be pursuing Jefsey Morfin's Multilingual DNS ideas There are no “Jefsey Morfin's Multilingual DNS ideas”. “Multilingual DNS” does not make sense in most of the documented understandings of the “DNS” ambivalent term. In ML-DNS (http://ml-dns.org) "ML" stands for multi-ledger (server associated registries on a lingual or application basis), mark-up language for domain names, and multilateral DNS usage in a distributed environment. JFC has already repeated several times that any ML-DNS architecture should use IDNA2008 as a default. You fired him for trying to make sure that this would remain possible...
> are counterproductive not only for you and your colleagues but for the progress of this working group. This could be true if we were off topic. We are clearly, however, not off topic. Alternatively, we certainly do accept the fact that we are off of your proposed solution to the considered topic. Since we represent a non-negligible number of contributors and made it rather clear that we support most of what the “c” philosophy proposes (Pete Resnik), led us to believe that we had reached a near consensus that you were leaning towards accepting until your overt opposition towards us for being counterproductive, along with Mark Davis' post .
> Continued postings arguing for "multi-lingual DNS" or changes to the DNS architecture are simply not in the mandate of this working group. We strongly oppose the weakening of the DNS by some propositions of this group and the confusion that IDNA2008 might introduce. We fully trust Andrew Sullivan and strictly support every position of this DNS related matter. We certainly have propositions to further protect the DNS and promote a robust and innovative use of domain names (we are users) towards a true A2A (application to application) presentation layer. These propositions do NOT fall under the area of this working group. To imply that they do, is really rather confusing.
>> At the moment, we just need to define the mapping function(s) that we agreed upon at the last face/face meeting and confirmed again on the mailing list. We never confirmed that. We strictly oppose all character mapping at the protocol level. This is because we think it is:
- a threat to the Internet's stability
- a layer violation
- a real embarrassment for further enhanced solutions.
We have our own modeling answering this difficulty and will publish it. However, we confirm in this all of the positions of others, our own experimentations, planned development, and service strategy in the sociolinguistic TLD area.
> Continued postings that divert from this goal will lead to cancellation of working group list posting privileges. We understand Mark Davis' interest and why you may want to support it. If it is your intended goal to impose a single mapping, and at the protocol level (instead of mapping recommendations at the application level). If this is the case, we will certainly continue to introduce our opposition. As individuals we are small, but our number is large and we are utterly determined to protect our interests. Sorry. Xavier Legoff
> On 4/15/09, Xavier Legoff <xlegoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mr. Cerf,
>> I am used to academic eccentricity. I also understand that being
>> confronted by Mr. Everson is a sophomore ritual.
>>
>> In our statement, we tried to limit ourselves to what directly belongs
>> or affects the very well defined area of this WG. i.e. the end to end
>> support of Unicode through TCP/IP languaging.
>>
>> Mr. Everson's troll engages a little further. I do not wish this WG to
>> waste any time. However, if you feel that some of these points need to be
>> discussed in more detail, please let us know.
>>
>> We tried to not look pedantic to people who know their own trade. We
>> are just worried when they consider taking "small" non-concerted
>> decisions without concerting with other trades where the impact can be
>> gigantic.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Xavier Legoff
Annex : http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/orgwhyjoin/membership2.pdf
PREMIER INTERNET STANDARDS BODY The Internet Society (ISOC) is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the premier Internet standards body in the world. The IETF has strong participation from the computing, networking, and telecommunications industries, from companies large and small, and is responsible for developing the Internet’s technical foundations through its open global forum. Our combined efforts are the foundation of every modern network or Internet product and service. In addition, we provide critical support in many aspects of the global deployment of the Internet.
RFC FUNDING The Internet Society provides a major source of funding and support for the IETF and its processes. Notably, the Internet Society funds 100% of the RFC Editor function: the RFC Editor is the publisher of the RFC’s (Requests for Comments) and is responsible for their final editorial review. The RFC’s began in 1969, and document many aspects of ‘computer communications’. They focus on networking standards, protocols and procedures, as well as key programs and concepts (see www.rfc-editor.org/overview.html). The RFCs are fundamental to a strong and secure Internet.
INTERNET STANDARDS SUPPORT ISOC’s contributions also extend to the legal, insurance and public relations support we provide to the IETF. We are the IETF’s sole source of financial support apart from IETF meeting fees. Support from companies, whose products and services so clearly depend on the standards developed by the IETF, is essential.
KEEPING YOU UP TO DATE The Internet Society helps you keep your finger on the pulse of the Internet through its frequent “Member Briefings” and other publications. These provide you with critical knowledge of the latest technical developments, primarily, but not exclusively, of the IETF standards process, as well as social and public policy matters that are particularly relevant to the global business community.
BUILDING THE FUTURE INTERNET By becoming an Internet Society Organization Member, you will help ensure the continued work of the IETF in creating, reviewing and publishing the standards on which the Internet is built; and help ensure a robust and ever expanding Internet presence around the world.
Supporting our Platinum Program gives your company the ability to focus your contributions specifically on the essential work of the IETF and our Standards activities.
Standards meets Public Policy The Internet Society is also the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the premier Internet standards body. The IETF develops and sets global technical standards and protocols, many of which have extensive implications for public policy. The Internet Society helps ensure that these are reviewed from a broad and international perspective and makes efforts to ensure that they can be understood by the general Internet community and technologists alike.
PLATINUM SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM The Platinum Sponsorship Program allows your company to specifically designate areas or projects to be supported in the fields of a) Standards, b) Public Policy or c) Education and Training. Your organization will have enhanced, direct consultation with ISOC regarding its activities in your funded area. Additional benefits also apply.
ISOC Platinum Member
Afilias Limited Alcatel-Lucent ARIN Cisco Systems, Inc. Comcast Juniper Networks RIPE NCC ISOC Gold Member APNIC Google Internet Initiative Japan (IIJ) Microsoft Nominet UK US Department of Defense (DISA)
2009/4/16 Vint Cerf <vint@google.com> M. Legoff,
Whatever may be motivating you and your colleagues to post on the IDNABIS working group list, it is my frank assessment that continued attempts to argue that the working group is off charter or is assuming responsibility that you think an IETF working group should not have or that the working group should be pursuing Jefsey Morfin's Multilingual DNS ideas are counterproductive not only for you and your colleagues but for the progress of this working group.
Continued postings arguing for "multi-lingual DNS" or changes to the DNS architecture are simply not in the mandate of this working group.
At the moment, we just need to define the mapping function(s) we agreed upon at the last face/face meeting and confirmed again on the mailing list. Continued postings that divert from this goal will lead to cancellation of working group list posting privileges.
vint cerf
On 4/15/09, Xavier Legoff <xlegoff@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Cerf, I am used to accademic excentricity. I also understand that being confronted to Mr. Everson is a sophomore ritual.
In our statement we tried to limit ourselves to what directly belongs or affects the very well defined area of this WG. i.e. the end to end support of Unicode through TCP/IP languaging.
Mr. Everson's troll engages a little further. I do not wish this WG to waste time. But if you feel that some of these points need to be discussed more in detail, please let us know.
We tried not to look pedantic to people who know their own trade. We are just worried when they consider taking "small" non concerted decisions without concerting with other trades where the impact can be gigantic.
Sincerely.
Xavier Legoff
