Subject: RE: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs

From: "L.Gillam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:44:28 +0100

Jefsey,
 
On what official basis do you represent human and cultural interests and civil rights? And for which peoples and cultures? 

-----Original Message-----
From: r&d afrac [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 07 August 2005 20:57
To: Gillam L Dr (Computing); ltru
Subject: RE: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs
 
[snips] 

It is rather a hobby to protect the human and cultural interests of as many people as possible against the annoyments artificially created by  others. But first, it is a defense against a few people wanting to annoy our work as much as they can. 
Oh! no.... unfortunately just a necessity they impose on us. Also a response to a demand of people, civil rights, industry and Govs, from developed and developing countries to help protecting their culture. An ethical duty.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:23:17 +0200

On 14:44 08/08/2005, L.Gillam said:
>Jefsey,
>On what official basis do you represent human and cultural interests and 
>civil rights? And for which peoples and cultures?

I am not sure I should answer such details in here (scope of the mailing list)?

However I am for transparency. I have also been opposed by Addison who 
signs as "Chair, W3C Internationalisation ..." but says he does not speak 
in that position, but privately, what confused me and my partial support of 
his Draft. As far as I am concerned I always said I speak privately _and_ 
as a trustee of several efforts. I am also a member of various other 
organisations (see Google), I do not claim to speak here on their behalf 
(hat off).

I am not sure of what you mean by "official", and you mix what I wrote. So, 
I will respond from my point of view, rather than from the point of view of 
others, documenting what I actually wrote. This is, I suppose, the best and 
most comprehensive response I can offer.

I said "my 'hobby' is to protect the human and cultural interests of as 
many people as possible against the annoyments artificially created by 
others". I created Intlnet in 1978 to serve the development of the public 
International Network, with an innovate user-centric architecture. This 
organisation teamed with Tymnet until 1986. At this date 
commercial/network-centric interests took over Tymnet annoying my effort, 
which had lead to extended services analysis, models, first products 
deployment and Department. There was a split from Tymnet, and various 
projects using the OSI technology - where annoyment came from an 
unnecessary rigidity in implementing the network architecture. For a few 
years the Internet solutions permit in part to develop some R&D and 
projects. Artificial annoyments come (as documented by RFC 3869) from lack 
of non-commercial R&D, lack of experience and competence, network basic 
understanding and vision. This WG is a good example of this lack of 
understanding of the needs and of the vision to address them. It considers 
typographer's tools to address networked relations. Out of scope by lack of 
proper competent analysis of its Charter, and as such a dramatic possible 
nuisance due to its intended positionning.

I talked of "a defense against a few people wanting to annoy our work as 
much as they can.". Until recently I though that W3C had a wrong evaluation 
of the market needs and due to that opposed the AFRAC work. That it did not 
yet identified our concurrent priorities. I respected the Draft 
propositions as possibly addressing some W3C members priorities, but I 
objected that this respect would be ballanced by a disrespect of the AFRAC 
needs. Now, Addison nearly simultaneously expressed that he conceived an 
IETF WG as a competition (confirming the reasons of my objections), that he 
is not here as a W3C Member (removing the reasons of my partial support) 
and has probably the motivation to annoy the thinking track we share with 
other W3C members (I am not interested in W3C internal discussions). I 
therefore feel totally at ease now to fully object the proposed Draft, as I 
see no technical interest in pursuing in the RFC 3066 error, documented in 
its security section.

I also said it was "a response to a demand of people, civil rights, 
industry and Govs, from developed and developing countries to help 
protecting their culture". I am not bound to disclose my political/cultural 
engagements nor to violate privacy rules, or legal/contractual obligations. 
But some have been broadly disclosed on Google and from them you can deduce 
the level of others. I am an elected person in several organisations, an 
industry consultant, one of the activists of the @large movement, a Member 
and a speaker of the ccTLD Registry community, and the founder of the fast 
developing http://nicso.org small think-thank. It is part of the fall outs 
of the Intlnet dot-root experiment, along the lines of ICANN. Other 
initiatives are under way in other areas.

I eventually said, "an ethical duty". We all have a duty to the people of 
the world, to the global internet community, to the IETF, to the members of 
the WG one shares in, to avoid mistakes being made when one identifies 
them. With 30 years of experience and ties in networking and cultural 
internetworking and in some other human, technical, artistic and political 
areas, I identify this Draft as the second and determining phase of a major 
error. I cannot do anything but to provide the service to the WG, the IETF, 
the GIC, etc. to help making sure it does not proceed. I certainly feel 
sorry for Addison's and Mark's. But an error can be sympathetic, it stays 
an error. And this one is not only big, but proud of being one big error.

While it could be so easy to correct, as most of the biggest mistakes.

You asked. I responded again. I hope you are satisfied. All this takes an 
awful lot of time, to prevent a catastrophe. Building would be more 
rewarding for all.
jfc

>It is rather a hobby to protect the human and cultural interests of as 
>many people as possible against the annoyments artificially created 
>by  others. But first, it is a defense against a few people wanting to 
>annoy our work as much as they can.
>Oh! no.... unfortunately just a necessity they impose on us. Also a 
>response to a demand of people, civil rights, industry and Govs, from 
>developed and developing countries to help protecting their culture. An 
>ethical duty.
>
>jfc