Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: [newsml-2] japanese scripts (was: person/namegivenand family elements)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:26:18 -0800

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

> We all know this is what affinity groups wants to change the law
> into.

Mr. Morfin has regularly and repeatedly made vague or not so vague reference to "affinity groups" in relation to the projects of this working group. I have and continue to find this offensive, as it suggests to me he believes there is a conspiracy afoot within this WG to do seditious things and to work with malicious intent. I'm offended because I believe every other participant in this WG has been working openly and with good intent for the betterment of the Internet and its users. Once again, I find myself enduring this offense.

Mr. Morfin, please discontinue these offensive remarks and acknowledge that there is a group -- the majority of this WG -- that is working openly and with honest and benevolent intent, even though they have made decisions that differ from what you prefer.

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:26:03 +0100

At 07:26 13/02/2006, Peter Constable wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-55605A91
>
> > We all know this is what affinity group wants to change the law
> > into.
>
>Mr. Morfin has regularly and repeatedly made vague or not so vague 
>reference to "affinity groups" in relation to the projects of this 
>working group. I have and continue to find this offensive, as it 
>suggests to me he believes there is a conspiracy afoot within this 
>WG to do seditious things and to work with malicious intent. I'm 
>offended because I believe every other participant in this WG has 
>been working openly and with good intent for the betterment of the 
>Internet and its users. Once again, I find myself enduring this offense.
>
>Mr. Morfin, please discontinue these offensive remarks and 
>acknowledge that there is a group -- the majority of this WG -- that 
>is working openly and with honest and benevolent intent, even though 
>they have made decisions that differ from what you prefer.

Dear Peter,
Sorry for the typo. Singular was intended. This issue is under IESG 
appeal. It has been documented by Harald Alvestrand when after having 
documented a position he apologized to the "consensus" for supporting 
technical positions favoring mine. BTW it was the only time a serious 
technical issue I rose was discussed. Out of respect for you I will 
finish this mail with the acknowledgment you ask.

Now several comments apply.

1. the "affinity group system" is documented as one of the main 
problem of the IETF. I suggest you read the RFC 3774 2.6.6. The IETF 
Chair has initiated the PESCI project in order to try to get rid of 
the various problems documented by RFC 3774. I understand that you 
feel wary about this problem being discussed in relation with this 
WG. But there is no conspiracy theory, nor offense.

2. "consensus by exhaustion" is also a problem identified by RFC 3774 
2.7: "A single vocal individual or small group can be a 
particular    challenge to WG progress and the authority of the 
chair.  The IETF does not have a strategy for dealing effectively 
with an individual who is inhibiting progress, whilst ensuring that 
an individual who has a genuine reason for revisiting a decision is 
allowed to get his or her point across.". The attrition of the 
WG-LTRU participation shows that we are in such a situation: 
consensus by exhaustion due to a vocal individual or a small group. I 
say a small group, you say an individual. I think there is a simple 
way to identify this: the fruits of the tree.

I obtained everything I wanted (but the points in regular Internet 
standard process appeal). A single individual defeated the consensus 
by exhaustion to impose the initial text. There is a text. I oppose 
its doctrine, but within that doctrine I obtained against the small 
group of its supporters what I wanted. I understand you would be 
upset if the consensual text is not what you wanted. Otherwise you 
should be glad.

3. Now we see developing pressures in order to implement a solution 
which contradicts the text we agreed together. I call that pressure 
seditious. And unless you want to impose the IESG something different 
from what we agreed and they approved (what I warned about in my 
appeal, and during all the WG-LTRU), you can only agree with me.

4. I would like to clarify what you call "malicious" intent. There is 
a French say about the inferno being paved with good intents. I made 
clear again and again that I respected your motivations and long term 
objectives (as for everyone in here - what may different from short 
term objectives). But that I thought your doctrine was incorrect. I 
also say that the ITEF affinity group (and its participants into this 
WG) share into the commercial R&D sponsoring problem, and resulting 
possible bias, identified and documented by the IAB (RFC 3869).

Hence, since you ask me an acknowledgment - you can quote me.

I acknowledge the WG-LTRU includes the group you document. It makes 
the majority by attrition of this WG. It works very openly along a 
technical doctrine I (and many, cf. WSIS) disapprove. It has obvious 
difficulty to understand or accept there are other doctrine. I think 
this group is part of the IETF affinity group described in RFC 3774. 
I certainly identify, in the language area, this group with a 
consortium of which I am an Individual Member. I think that the 
proper solution for the IETF should be an MoU with that consortium to 
clearly define their areas of cooperation and to prevent an influence 
creep contrary to the RFC 3934 IETF missions, values and duties. I 
have no reason to believe than any individual WG-LTRU member is not 
honest and benevolent and does not want the good of the Internet and 
its users, even if I suffered from them many direct or indirect ad 
hominem, threats, defamations, attitude with substantial financial 
losses for my professional activity. But, I think they suffer - as I 
do - from the IETF intrinsic problems described in RFC 3774 and RFC 
3869. I also think that the split consumated between the US Internet 
and the world digital ecosystem communications future evolution is a 
good thing and was made necessary by the affinity group positions 
documented in RFC 3935. It will permit this affinity group to 
continue maintaining the Internet and to others to innovate without 
risk of conflict.

This is why I think that - in their context - we painstakingly 
reached the decisions I wanted and therefore agree with (except those 
under  appeal). Should it fly, what I do not think possible, the 
eventually consensual texts produced so far protect the users from 
the flaws I see in their architectural approach. It can permit, with 
minor accepted or usage changes, a continuity between their 
Internationalised US Internet oriented solution and the world's 
multilingual communication system, language coding the WSIS calls 
for, the IGF is to foster, I work on and they refused to consider. I 
think this will also be helped by new emerging standards.

This is why I cannot accept that the consensus we reached is 
endangered by the current effort I see developing to confuse the IANA 
Language Tag Registry definition, management, reviewing, mailing list 
management, publishing and control with the IANA Language Subtag and 
Extension Registries. I observe that this effort is parallel to the 
effort to neutralize me and is openly supported by identified persons 
we should trust and by the silence of others. The dismay makes me 
calling this effort seditious. I do regret it because if it succeeds 
it will definitely harm the IETF and engage into a balkanisation I 
made every effort to avoid.

Personal questions: I am interested to know where you disagree with 
this (except on the architectural/technial issues). Where you suffer 
an offense? And on wich side you are IRT the respect of the Internet 
standard process and of the WG-LTRU consensus.

jfc