Subject: Re: [iucg] [workon] where are we?

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:11:00 +0100

2010/3/12 JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>

> Dear all,
>
> IDNA2008 gave us back the architectural capability we longed for twenty
> four years. IMHO, we want now to play it fair avoiding harm/confusion,
> hence:
>

Jefsey,

I think that before we directly engage in your agenda, we should concert on
a concrete strategy. As long as we could meet face2face in Paris and
sometimes prepare mails in common so we could learn in the course of the
action and we discussed a way to obtain something clear to us, we could work
as we did. Now we got it, you are in Montpellier, and we have to really
build the Interplus and start the Intersem we need we need to better
organize because you are going to be the only main thinker. What I can do is
only to help and test. Then some of us can take responsibility for studying
a slot, what would mean good Netix experience. But there still a lot of work
for you ahead in an area where we cannot help, at least not immediately.

I suggest that we take a break for a few days and discuss on the "JEDIs"
list (in French!) how to best organize and what should be our real life
target. Also, financing and devlopping.

Portzamparc

(JEDI is a contraction of "JEfsey's DIsciples" as we were called by some on
the WG/IDNABIS :-))

Best

> 1. In the case of being advised on the harm our exploration of the IDNA2008
> consequences, the authority is the IAB, hence the appeal.
>
> 2. In the case of documenting IDNA on the user side (IDNA2010) we always
> agreed that the WG/IDNABIS Chair was the Internet side authority.
>
> 3. In the case of documenting the Interplus, we are now authoritative and
> based upon IDNA2008 documents. I suggest that avoiding confusion here means:
>
> 3.1. to proceed independently from the appeal but in line with it, i.e.
> using it as a reference regarding the issues to address, updating it with
> the contribution received.
> 3.2. to document the Interplus as an existing practical system, delaying
> its rationale until we have running experience. This may delay political,
> commercial, activist hackers.
> 3.3. to maintain a comprehensive digital relational facilitation services
> framework clearly defined as three strata (electric, logic, semantic) with
> two logic substrata (passive content [Internet] and active/abient content
> [Interplus]). As per our charter we will focus on (1) interfacing
> IETF/Internet users (2) documenting and interfacing the IETF as
> Inteplus/interusers.
> 3.4. IMHO we need an Interplus continuation of RFC 1958 and 3439. With
> permanent change, simplicity and diversity through multiplicity as basic
> principles and a review of the RFC 1958 recipes, based upon experience and
> Interplus/Intersem.
> 3.5. to consider the adminance issues (technical strategy) and only
> consider governance (political strategy) if it help us
>
> 4. I would suggest an on-going review of the charter for more affimative
> positioning based upon one year experience and a clearer definition of our
> interest in the Intersem. We have become multilinguists, do we want to
> become "interbrainers" ?
>
> 5. Once the IESG and IAB contributions are settled on IDNA we will be in a
> position to restart [email-masked].
>
> I will be out of touch for the most part of the week-end.
>
> jfc
>
>
> PS. Please, let continue not to react to the IETF mail exchanges. An appeal
> is a way to contribute. Not to conflict. The Anti-Jefsey bronca (by the
> usual ones :-)) is over.  We want to learn from the comments to this appeal.
>  I hope that a clearer focus on the Interplus and its documentation brings
> us more participants.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> workon mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org
>

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:35:05 +0100

I am traveling. Just saw this. I think you are probably right. Frankly, I
did not expect IETF leaders would be so much remote from architectural
issues.
Surprizing.
jfc

2010/3/12 Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>

> 2010/3/12 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
>
> +1
>> (JEDI is a contraction of "JEfsey's DIsciples" as we were called by some
>> on the WG/IDNABIS :-))
>>
>
> May-be should we explain others that JEDIs are not a lobby, or something.
> They are friends of my father, and then friends of friends, who went upset
> at the way JFC as a user fighting for our rights was unwelcome at the IETF
> "where decisions concerning our life are really made in a rather
> non-democratic way if people like JFC are banned because they defend us and
> win".
>
> Marie-France Berny
>
>
>