Subject: RE: [Ltru] Jersey JE and Guernsey GG Country Codes

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:08:21 -0700

DIN is no longer the Maintenance Agency for ISO 3166; the MA is ISO
Central Secretariat.

FYI, from their FAQ:

02: What is the procedure for adding new country names and codes to ISO
3166-1?
A: New names and codes are added when the United Nations publish new
names in either their Terminology Bulletin Country Names or in the
Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use maintained by the United
Nations Statistics Division. There is no other way of having new country
names included in ISO 3166-1. So if a name is not on these lists it will
not get into ISO 3166-1. 

Cf. http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/index.html 

Peter Constable

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Debbie Garside
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:48 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ltru] Jersey JE and Guernsey GG Country Codes
> 
> FYI
> 
> There is an official proposal, endorsed by UK government to adopt
these
> codes and it should be available on Friday for submission to DIN via
BSI.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Debbie Garside
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

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

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:27:45 +0100

Hmmmm....

I got this from the W3C site...

"Excerpt from "How to get a country name into ISO 3166-1"
http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/get_name.html: 

III. A request for the inclusion of a country name (or the name of
     a dependent area) in ISO 3166-1 must originate from the national
     government of the country or from the national standards body
     of that country. The ISO 3166/MA rejects any request which is
     not accompanied by a written statement from the national goverment
     explicitly agreeing to and supporting the request."

Can you give me a link to a registration application page?  

Cheers

Debbie  

> From: Peter Constable [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 12 July 2005 22:08
> To: Debbie Garside; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Jersey JE and Guernsey GG Country Codes
>

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:44:43 +0100

So... are you telling me that I have to go back to Tony (Blair) and tell him
his letter won't be necessary...?  ;-)

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Debbie Garside
> Sent: 12 July 2005 22:28
> To: 'Peter Constable'; [email-masked]

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:14:01 +0200

>his letter won't be necessary...?  ;-)

Debbie,
ad-hominem! If Tony wants to discuss his position on the Jersey and 
Gernesey langtags, please have him joining this list.

This may look as a troll. But it is not. It is a perfect example of the 
inadequation of IETF to address issues which are beyond its scope. 
Sometime, a langtag user will have a conflict between an IETF Internet 
defined conception and legal definition of Her Gacious Majesty Government. 
And will lose time, money, credibility, etc. due to that. The Draft will 
lose credibility. Hardly what the authors want.

The Draft should start with the following warning (just after the 
Introduction):

"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not an 
appropriate correlation between a language, a script, a country and other 
cultural or human language elements as they may appear necessary. The 
selection of ISO 639 to obtain a language/script/country correlating table 
and rules was made with the knowldge that ISO has procedures to determine 
which resulting language tags should be and should not be on such a list. 
It happens that ISO 639 does not provide yet such a list. So, however the 
IANA is not in the business of deciding if this is a lack ISO still has to 
address or if it is a deliberated authoritative decision, the IANA intends 
to extend the possibilities offered to Internet protocols and applications 
users by RFC 3066. This Memo describes under which technical terms this may 
be done, notwithstanding the national or international legal limitations 
which may be imposed elsewhere to the users."

"The IANA adheres to the language equal opportunity declaration:

"The purpose of technology isn't to insure that everybody should have an 
equal opportunity whatever his language, its purpose is to allow this goal.

"This document's aim is to allow everyone to freely share the cultural life 
of the Internet community, to enjoy using its solutions on an equal 
linguistic, cultural, technical, economical and commercial basis, and to 
share into the benefits of the technology and its advancements without 
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, 
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or 
other status and education. Therefore the goal is to build a common 
technical standard for all people and all nations to be used or embedded in 
any technical solution, without any limitation resulting from the script, 
the language, the referent or the context of their technical environment.

"Taking into account the granular nature and the diversity of the world's 
digital ecosystem as well as the requirements of its technical convergence, 
the authors of this technical memorandum strongly advocate its free, secure 
and stable implementation to serve the rights and freedoms of its users at 
an international, national and personal level, in the respect of sovereign 
laws and jurisdiction of each State, of the empowerment of local cultures, 
and of its intergovernance by subsidiarity in any of the public or private, 
community or individual contexts. "

(text to be revised along with its review by the members of the global 
on-line community in preparation of the Tunis declaration)

jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:10:25 -0700

Hi -

I'd like to get a hum on this proposed addition.  Obviously it would need some
work on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and other editorial details.  I'm just
interested in finding out whether the WG supports adding something that conveys
the sense of the proposal.

Please post to the ltru list whether you support or oppose the addition.

Randy, ltru co-chair

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>; "'Debbie Garside'" <[email-masked]>; "'Peter Constable'"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:14 PM

> on-line community in preparation of the Tunis declaration)
...

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:29:52 -0700

Oppose. It would be bizarre for IANA to have a proclamation of its approach
to "sharing the cultural life of the Internet community" in an RFC.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 00:10
Subject: [Ltru] Proposed addition after introduction (was: Jersey JE
andGuernsey GG Country Codes)

> > To: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>; "'Debbie Garside'"
<[email-masked]>; "'Peter Constable'"

---

From: Erkki Kolehmainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:08:36 +0300

So do I. - Erkki I. Kolehmainen

Mark Davis wrote:

>>I'd like to get a hum on this proposed addition.  Obviously it would need
>>
> some
> 
>>work on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and other editorial details.  I'm
>>
> just
> 
>>interested in finding out whether the WG supports adding something that
>>
> conveys
> 
>>>>So... are you telling me that I have to go back to Tony (Blair) and
>>>>
> tell him
> 
>>>defined conception and legal definition of Her Gacious Majesty
>>>
> Government.
> 
>>>appropriate correlation between a language, a script, a country and
>>>
> other
> 
>>>selection of ISO 639 to obtain a language/script/country correlating
>>>
> table
> 
>>>and rules was made with the knowldge that ISO has procedures to
>>>
> determine
> 
>>>which resulting language tags should be and should not be on such a
>>>
> list.
> 
>>>It happens that ISO 639 does not provide yet such a list. So, however
>>>
> the
> 
>>>IANA is not in the business of deciding if this is a lack ISO still has
>>>
> to
> 
>>>address or if it is a deliberated authoritative decision, the IANA
>>>
> intends
> 
>>>to extend the possibilities offered to Internet protocols and
>>>
> applications
> 
>>>users by RFC 3066. This Memo describes under which technical terms this
>>>
> may
> 
>>>equal opportunity whatever his language, its purpose is to allow this
>>>
> goal.
> 
>>>"This document's aim is to allow everyone to freely share the cultural
>>>
> life
> 
>>>political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
>>>
> or
> 
>>>technical standard for all people and all nations to be used or embedded
>>>
> in
> 
>>>any technical solution, without any limitation resulting from the
>>>
> script,
> 
>>>the language, the referent or the context of their technical
>>>
> environment.
> 
>>>"Taking into account the granular nature and the diversity of the
>>>
> world's
> 
>>>digital ecosystem as well as the requirements of its technical
>>>
> convergence,
> 
>>>the authors of this technical memorandum strongly advocate its free,
>>>
> secure
> 
>>>and stable implementation to serve the rights and freedoms of its users
>>>
> at
> 
>>>an international, national and personal level, in the respect of
>>>
> sovereign
> 
>>>laws and jurisdiction of each State, of the empowerment of local
>>>
> cultures,
> 
>>>and of its intergovernance by subsidiarity in any of the public or
>>>
> private,
>

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:28:24 +0900

[with my co-chair hat on]
I'd like to thank JFC on actually submitting real text.
As both chairs have said repeatedly, this is the best way
to move things forward.

For everybody: If you make an actual proposal (rather than just
discuss a proposal), please use a new subject. Also, please
indicate clearly that you want this change to happen as part
of WG Last Call. Otherwise, we're never sure whether that's
what you want, or whether your proposal is just "as an idea".

[with my co-chair hat off]
I quite a bit agree with the sentiment in some of the text.
(I have worked on Internationalization of the WWW and the
Internet for a long time, so I hope this doesn't come as a
surprise.) However, as an engineer, I think that what counts
is the actual spec. As a technical project, the only thing
we can do is to try to produce good technology, and hope
it gets used the right way. Engineers in general, and the
IETF in particular, is rather bad at marketing and politics,
and I think we should stay away from it. Declarations like
those in JFC's proposed text are very important in political
fora, but in my opinion don't belong in a technical spec
(like ours). Also, some of the wording proposed sounds a bit
too much like "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
(or "Liberte', Egalite', Fraternite'", or whatever your local
version), or seen from the negative side, like "motherhood and
applepie" (sorry, don't know what the French equivalent would
be).

The only bit where I'd like a bit more time to check the current
draft text is JFCs first paragraph. If we are not clear enough
that the draft and the registry don't define languages, but
only provide identifiers, then I think may be a problem.
But if this is the case, then this should be fixed mostly
by word tweaking, rather than by grandiose declarations.
As an example, looking at the first sentence of section @,
it currently starts "The language tag always defines a language...".
I think this should be changed to say
"The language tag always identifies a language..."

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:39:38 -0400

> [with my co-chair hat off]

I strongly agree with all of Martin's points.

-- 
And it was said that ever after, if any                 John Cowan
man looked in that Stone, unless he had a               [email-masked]
great strength of will to turn it to other              www.ccil.org/~cowan
purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering           www.reutershealth.com
in flame.   --"The Pyre of Denethor"

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:46:20 +0200

>what you want, or whether your proposal is just "as an idea".

Dear Martin,
I make this proposition two technical propositions. There is no worst 
politics than to involve oneself in polical issues in not defining the 
boarder and whi is responsible of what. Unless this Draft wants to be a UN 
declaration. So, in believing one does not make policy one makes be error 
a  political act. This Draft is not opposed for its technical aspects most 
ignores. It is strongly and w ill increasingly be opposed on political 
grounds. Silence is confusion.

>it gets used the right way.

You cannot use technology to impose political choices in political fields, 
what the Draft does. The first part of my text I keep in this part is an 
exact equivalent (and therefore necessary) of RFC 1591 which covers ISO 
3166. This Draft otherwise is in contradiction with Jon Postel wise 
separation. Jon Postel commented ISO 3166, ISO 15924, ISO 639-X and UN.49 
are no IETF documents and their exact authoritativeness is to be documented.

The idea of correlating languages and countries is a very controverted 
political issue. It is not the role of IETF to take side. The argument to 
say this is not to be in an RFC it is like saying copyright mentions should 
not be in an RFC because these are lagalities.

>Engineers in general, and the
>and I think we should stay away from it.

True. And this is why it must be said. And politics to be left to politics.

>  Declarations like
>(like ours).

No. RFC 3066 was not really used and politics are not really aware of it. 
But RFC is a major political position. I do not think this political 
position belong to the ISO thao (the fact to permit a technical censoring 
on a political tag [I remind that ISO 3166 provide a code for a country 
name:Jon Postel associates it for IETF with the ccTLD Manager, here it is 
obviously linked to non Internet issues like Govs, Admin, Commerce]).

If Govs through ISO Members have not ventured into that area I think (this 
is a pesonal point of view, but quite shared) it is a decision, not a lack.

>only provide identifiers, then I think may be a problem.

This is a major (also political and commercial issue). The problem is the 
same as ISO 3166 and creates a consistency problem.

>by word tweaking, rather than by grandiose declarations.

See next post.

>"The language tag always identifies a language..."

This is not enough, because there are not enough information in the langtag 
to differentiate two languages elligible to the same langtag. This leads to 
the need to define the used words (this point was discussed after a 
proposition of yours). What is a language, what is its granularity?
Again, I underline that we are here IETF not ISO. This means that we are 
not in a static description of language items, but dynamic exchanges 
qualifications.

I repeat here the proposition of a leading paragraph.

1. it should include a definition of what are a language, a script and a 
region (country?)

2. it should include the following paragraph.

"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not an 
appropriate correlation between a language, a script, a country and other 
cultural or human language elements as they may appear necessary [RFC 1591] 
The selection of ISO 639 to obtain a language/script/country correlating 
table and rules was made with the knowldge that ISO has procedures to 
determine which resulting language tags should be and should not be on such 
a list. It happens that ISO 639 does not provide yet such a list. So, 
however the IANA is not in the business of deciding if this is a lack ISO 
still has to address or if it is a deliberated authoritative decision, the 
IANA intends to extend the possibilities offered to Internet protocols and 
applications users by RFC 3066. This Memo describes under which technical 
terms this may be done, notwithstanding the national or international legal 
limitations which may be imposed elsewhere to the users."

jfc

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:26:42 +0200

The main reason why I and many will oppose this Draft is the abilty of use 
it and not to fully respect the obligations of equal linguistic opportunity 
obligations. A standard cannot force this, the same as it cannot force to 
respect IPRs which may be involved in applications, this is why it includes 
legal wording to show that infringements to IPRs in using the standard was 
not the intend of its authors and that its authors wanted the users of the 
standard would respect IPRs.

The "equal lingustic opportunity declaration" is a general declaration 
which is proposed to address this problem. The text has been already review 
by members of most of the involved organisations in the Intergovernance. To 
refuse to adhere to this declaration or to its equivalent will be 
understood as a deliberate political position "not to".

This shows how supposedly "not making policy" in not telling it 
approiprietly is the worst way to make politics.

At 12:28 13/07/2005, Martin Duerst wrote:
>Also, some of the wording proposed sounds a bit

This wording is exactly derived from the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. I do not know your apple stuff meaning, but would it be good if 
some press used your remark as a way for an IETF WG Chair to qualify HRs? 
(just to show the risk not to document the intended boarder between 
technical and political issues when they correlate).

Now, let understand that this wording as a "political protection" as other 
wording is mandatory "legal protection". There are two ways to introduce 
this text:

1. either in the Draft which wants to deal with language, as a declaration 
of intent to best respect HRs as they think it feasible (see below)
2. or through a specialised BCP imposing the wording to all the RFCs. This 
may be too much and create a debate which may be detimental to the image of 
the IETF (consider the remarks received here, being made and published on 
the main IETF list and their international impact). I want to defend the 
network and the people, not to damage IETF.

Why is this technical? Because, the Draft does not support all the 
languages in the same way as English. It does not permit everyone from 
every language to equally share in R&D with the political, industrial, 
human impact this may have. Leading to a difference between people on the 
base of their knowledge or not of English, or their keyboard where HRs 
forbide them (becoming WG-ltru Members, or simply users or simply 
end-users). I can answer to the question of Martin on why they are not here 
(I am not sure we need such a debate, here and now).

What becomes highly political in this Draft is when technical solutions (as 
the ones I work on) are not considered as they should. I therefore call for 
the following paragraph to be introduced to show the authors are bona fide 
persons. To show they tried their best to match the technical ethical 
challenges. Since I contest they tried it: it would seem very odd they refuse.

"The IANA adheres to the language equal opportunity declaration,

The purpose of technology isn't to insure that everybody should have an 
equal opportunity whatever his language, its purpose is to allow this goal.

This document's aim is to allow everyone to freely share the cultural life 
the language, the referent or the context of the technical environment.

Taking into account the granular nature and the diversity of the world's 
digital ecosystem as well as the requirements of its technical convergence, 
the authors of this technical memorandum strongly advocate its free, secure 
and stable implementation to serve the rights and freedoms of its users at 
an international, national and personal level, in the respect of sovereign 
laws and jurisdiction of each State, of the empowerment of local cultures, 
and of its intergovernance by subsidiarity in any of the public or private, 
community or individual contexts.

jfc