Subject: [iucg] Notice of distrust

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:22:32 +0200

The following "Removed Unicode Glossary"  section has replaced the "Unicode
Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA2008 issues. The anti-fair
use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a normal user and academic review of
their language and an effort of consistency with the other Internet oriented
SDOs. As a result the possible existence of a Unicode bias they seem to wish
to protect should be feared. The Unicode deliverables should not be trusted
in an Internet use environment, at least until Unicode acknowledges its
users right to analyze and review their technology.

Portzamparc

----

IDNA2008 strove to make the Internet independent from the Unicode versions
and, therefore, to reduce the impact of Unicode on the IDNA architecture
and, therefore, on the Internet.

However,

* some considered Unicode as central to their understanding of the Variants
and of their algorithm.

* that the Internet architecture is to be independent from Unicode
variations does not mean that it could not capitalize on its accumulated
observations and experience.

* fructuous relations between the multilinguists' network systems area and
the linguists' language and scripts area called for the bridge of polynym
terms.

This is why the possible integration of some definitions of the Unicode
Glossary was perceived as important and we wanted to publicly work on the
reduction of the possible distance between the Unicode glossary, as for any
SDO's glossary, with the IUsers' understanding and own glossary. However, it
turns out that Unicode wants to thwart people who are subject to its tables
and policy from trying to understand them.

When quoting a document in order to conduct research and comment on it falls
under "fair use" and is accepted worldwide. However, this is not the case
with Unicode, which '''shut down our site[MHL1] <#_msocom_1> ''' in stating
to our hosting company:

:''"I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright
owner, its agent, or the law.

:''I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the
notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized
to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed."

What is particularly worrying is that:

* the quoted document is a '''glossary''' where people are supposed to not
set out to invent on their own but rather to tell the truth. This means that
either Unicode claims '''copyrights on the truth''' (hence their UniGod
nickname), or that their "truth" is not the common truth.

* as Internet Users, we are subject to the influence (RFC 3935) of several
RFCs that trust the Unicode documentation of which we are not allowed to
jointly explore, discuss, or learn and, therefore, use.

* we looked for some of the definitions. Google found them in other more
documented (and also copyrighted) texts. We are users, not lawyers.

We, therefore, had to decide if we would or would not consider the Unicode
contribution as a reliable source for an involved Internet users’ glossary.
We had started working on the Unicode Glossary, making this part of the
[[IUWW]] very different from the Unicode copyrighted page (in particular,
starting the translation of it into French). Then, we had to review the
"algorithm" definition that is central for us and an important item for the
ICANN/VIP variants discussion.

The Unicode definition is (there is no direct link to the sole definition,
so we will quote it): "A term used in a broad sense in the Unicode Standard,
to mean the logical description of a process used to achieve a specified
result. This does not require the actual procedure described in the
algorithm to be followed; any implementation is conformant as long as the
results are the same."

We noted that this departed from the usual definition of algorithms, as
pertains to what a Turing Machine can execute. Our own understanding is that
an algorithm is a logical suite of qualitative, quantitative, and
significative functions that a Turing machine can execute in the
quantitative mathematic area and other equivalent machines that are still to
be defined could execute in the pragmatic and semantic areas. The debate
here has shown that the Unicode definition of what we consider the key
scientific and cultural point is too far from our own understanding. We then
identified the fact that from this difference actually came our two main
problems with Unicode: '''homography''' and '''orthotypography'''.

We, therefore, realized that if the US Unicode consortium does not respect
our work, they are unfortunately also not interested in respecting our
needs.

---

From: Elisabeth Blanconil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:42:25 +0200

+1

2011/8/26 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:22:10 +0200

At 09:22 26/08/2011, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
>The following "Removed Unicode Glossary"  section has replaced the 
>"Unicode Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA2008 
>issues. The anti-fair use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a 
>normal user and academic review of their language and an effort of 
>consistency with the other Internet oriented SDOs. As a result the 
>possible existence of a Unicode bias they seem to wish to protect 
>should be feared. The Unicode deliverables should not be trusted in 
>an Internet use environment, at least until Unicode acknowledges its 

Jean-Michel,

I believe that this Unicode incident came in time. It was early 
enough to alert us on a problem we did not think of concerning the 
Internet of Thoughts: the Denial of Thinking. We known the DoT by 
saturation of irrelevant mails, influences, delaying tactis, etc. We 
met with Unicode the DoT by noetical fuel shortage. We were impeached 
to freely use our thinking method because its noetical processus 
calls for the participants to share a common referent, gathering, 
then sorting, then documentin all the data of the problem to address.

This is very important: this is the whole thinking facilitation 
architecture which must be reviewed. We feared desinformation as the 
noetical level security problem. The experimented possibility of a 
copyright based attack is now to be considered: the thinking process 
is removed its tools or its information fuel.

- you take the problem on a Trust basis. If we distrust someone we do 
not consider his/her inputs, and we are protected. This is true if a 
true peritem (closed/active border) can be built this way between us 
and him/her.

- now, consider - as for Unicode - that we only have an amphitem (an 
open/transparent border - our hosting provider has been hardened by 
the experience, but them or another piece of our cybship can be 
subject to attack, e.g. our virtual network, an OPES, etc.). This 
means that by many implications our common and personal facilitation 
processes can be subject to their interferences. This is not 
acceptable. This is a commercial censure (here a protection of their 
dominant situation), next it will be political or philosophical 
reduction of our right to a free cerebral assistance.

The IUWW (IUsers Working Wiki) is part of our working collective 
facilitation system. We experimented that Unicode (against the "fair 
use" consensus, i.e. against the law, but obviously with the alleged 
threat of the law on our hosting provider) was able to interupt that 
facilitation system. I think we have to consider that threat at the 
source, i.e. the culural source of such a behaviour what made Rick 
proud of himself while violating our freedom of thinking. I am 
reading ACTA for that.

Right now my question is: the current crisis comes from the 
incompetence of financial experts facing a world that has changed so 
much that politicians are also incompetent to correct them, both 
leaving the stage to merchants. And what has changed is that 
"information/immaterial" has become a major capital asset no one 
knows how to evaluate, so they use money. We face the same problem 
with domain names' value, i.e. with the unique authoritative root. 
This means that we face a general but probably consistant problem. 
This fits with the MDRS mission to provide everyone with its 
networked IANA. But now we have to protect it from money interests! 
ICANN for the internet, Unigod for the intersem.

Worrying.
jfc