Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1073] Last call: IANA adaptation of theUN disclaimer

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:01:52 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of r&d afrac

> Half reading or constantly misconstruing what I say...

Look who's calling the pot black!

> "A is not possible"/"Yes AB is possible" is usefull for me with legal
> reviewers.

Mr. Morfin appears to be engaging in tactics of intimidation. I consider
this far from good faith to be a contributing member within a working
group.

> >False.  If we were imitating the structure of the ISO or UN
directories,
> such
> >a claim might almost be plausible.  With a differing organization of
data,
> >the omission of some elements, the addition of other elements,
> >and a differing scope of application, any claim of copyright
infringement
> >would be rather far-fetched.
> 
> Thank you for so exactly describing your intent to tamper with the
> intended
> usage of the codes.

This is utter misconstrual and innuendo.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:32:22 +0200

Dear Mr. Constable,
I must confess I am tired of all this unrealistic debate.

>Look who's calling the pot black!

Ad-hominem.

>this far from good faith to be a contributing member within a working

Please document in which way the responses of Randy Preshun are addressing 
the points I made?
In which way a point on "text" in general, can be addressed by an anecdotic 
remark on "specific text" in particular?
How the possibility of removal of one paragraph can address a remark 
concerning the impossibility to remove the Draft or RFC 3066?
How teeling that I ignore the existence of the very procedure I am calling 
the use, can be pertinent?

If you consider a contributing member as an applauding member I am 
certainly not. I was clear in accepting to support Randy for the creation 
of this WG: I will _not_ support anything else than the _Charter_. I have 
every intention to keep my word and to oppose every tactics avoiding to 
address the Charter. Points not considering the Charter are purely 
disruptive IMO. This confusion about locales enters into that category. 
CLDR _is_ in the Charter.

You should know after all these months that I am not intimidated easily. 
BTW did I say that I fond yesterday a disruptive phone message over RFC 
3066 from a public phone in ... Valence in South of France. A place some in 
here know well. Does that follow the questions (in archives) about my cost 
to the industry, or broken nose? I thought this was only the IETF ....

> > intended usage of the codes.
>

I think you have not at all understood the problem. There is absolutely no 
innuendo. Things are very clear and open:

- there is a precise description of the intent to use ISO and UN codes in a 
different way than their initial purpose, and my opinion, in an opposed way 
to the intent of their authors. None of these authors has intended to see 
established a published correlation between languages, scripts and 
countries. This point is risen in ISO 639-4 and is under active debate, for 
the very reasons Randy describes. Which are judged by many as highly 
politically loaded. And possibly in some participating countries as 
illegal. This is no small matter whatever you may feel.

- there is a clear opposition of mine to this on ethical and technical 
grounds. And a clear opposition, should the document be agreed, on legal 
grounds which will be addressed at IANA level. This strictly belongs to the 
Charter which is to establish a Registry in correcting RFC 3066.

The only way to clarify this is to ask the authors - ISO, UN and those who 
can oppose (GAC, Government, Civil Rights, Consumers, Industries 
organisations). I suppose that no one will have a problem with that (better 
to carry that work in parallel, rather than afterward)? If you want to 
share in the letters sent to them you are most welcome.

Does the following description describes your intent as described by Randy:

"The Draft proposed by the WG-ltru at this stage, does not intent to 
reproduce or to imitate the structure of the ISO or UN directories (I am 
not sure it is the proper word to use?), but to present their data in a 
different organisation, omitting some elements, adding other elements, with 
a differing scope of application (this is not clear to me and need 
clarification as I feel that the scope of each code is proper and this is 
their correlation which is improper, but I am ready to keep the wording). 
The WG-ltru feels that considering that there would be copyright issues 
would be far-fetched".

- does that also transcribes correctly the WG-ltru feeling?
- I will add my own organisations ethical questions.
- I will ask guidance on the correlation issues.

The IETF having no legal existence, I will copy these letters to ICANN 
(IANA), ISOC (IETF). Please indicate if there are other authorities you 
which to see copied.

All the best.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:54:45 -0700

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1073] Last call: IANA adaptation of theUNdisclaimer
...
> illegal. This is no small matter whatever you may feel.

If the problem you claim exists in ISO 639-4, it's still, by definition, not our problem.
But, reading Peter's message, I doubt whether the purported problem exists at all.

> Charter which is to establish a Registry in correcting RFC 3066.

Despite your repeated hissy fits, your opposition has not gained any support
among the working group members.  Continued whining justs wastes time
and annoys those who are contributing in good faith.  But you know that.

> share in the letters sent to them you are most welcome.

If folks want to participate in this working group, this mailing list is the
place to do it.  If others want to work through the liaison process, they
are welcome to do so, though I suspect liasons would take too long.

> The WG-ltru feels that considering that there would be copyright issues

A twisted reading if ever there was.  In any case, if you're trying
to pretend that you're doing liaison work, I recommend conferring with
the IETF's liaisons to the various organizations.  See
http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html

> - I will ask guidance on the correlation issues.

Fuss all you like.  Participation here is by individuals.  If you think
others have something to contribute, please encourage them to
join the working group, even at this late date.

> (IANA), ISOC (IETF). Please indicate if there are other authorities you
...

They have my condolences.

Randy

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 03:25:14 +0200

At 00:54 17/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>  ...snip...
>A twisted reading if ever there was.

You will note that if this is the case, I ask for guidance in correcting it.
I will therefore only quote your text, but out of context it may present 
your position in a lesser correct way? You welcome to phrase it the way you 
want to to appear, if the meaning is unchanged. Can I be more loyal to you 
and to this WG?

>In any case, if you're trying to pretend that you're doing liaison work,

I am not. As you point it out, participation in the IETF is personal. I 
have no capacity in acting as the IETF's liaison to these various 
organisations. I have deep ethical and technical concerns about this Draft 
and what _I_ consider as its disregard of the Charter. I beleived that in 
spite of our oppositions and the lack of debate on the missions assigned by 
the Charter, the WG Last Call would permit to positively address them.

I see this will not be the case.

>I recommend conferring with the IETF's liaisons to the various 
>organizations.  See http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html

You perfectly know that as an individual I have no reason to do so. I will 
suggest however that their are copied of the letters which may be of 
interest to them.

Best regards.
jfc