consensus on TATWEEL

[Vint Cerf]

Dear M. Bleriot:

1. I am functioning within the charter and the practices of the IETF. I have
the approval of the Area Director to take actions to protect the focus of
the Working Group from fruitless excursions of the kind you seem determined
to visit on the WG mailing list.

2. I am a founder of the Internet Society and served as its first President.
It is largely supported by its operation of the Public Interest Registry
that operates .ORG. In addition it solicits and receives support from
sponsors, including my company, to help pay for the cost of operating IETF.
IETF is NOT a profitable activity. It is a cost center for ISOC.

3. I see no connection between the TATWEEL matter and the French language,
as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, and consequently doubt that you and your
colleages have standing to argue that the rough consensus reached is in any
way a violation of process or charter of this Working Group.

If you persist in wasting the time of this WG on such procedural nonsense, I
will consider it a matter of policy to remove your posting privileges so as
to allow the WG to focus on its proper business.

Vint Cerf


On 4/13/09, LB <lbleriot at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Cerf,
>
> Translated by Google
> -------------------------------
> I am sorry that you misunderstand. And please excuse my English and my
> harshness, of Breton and retired high school teacher. It is entirely
> possible that a group of engineers of the new IETF, as now defined (1) by
> its sponsor, can take decisions in terms of language and spelling for the
> world. However, I do not think this is our charter, and I think this leads
> us directly to an IETF / LC long, expensive and negative. What should not be
> our interest.
>
> However, I do not think people outside the ASWIG who supported the decision
> TATWEEL; added to ASWIG which has not been unanimous that it requires; added
> to vibrant opposition four members of france @ large; form a consensus. Or
> in terms of this new IETF (1) where participation is by companies and
> organizations (and revenue?): This is a surprise to many people. We
> understand better the recent DoS FLOSS. Do we want a DoS against positions
> "consensus" of the WG as to its legitimacy and lack of support for the
> French spelling? This would waste time and france @ large (which I represent
> in the absence of JFC) hopes to help prevent it.
>
> That is why I believe it is more favorable for a better, peaceful and
> fruitful work of the group that
> - either it limits itself to what everyone considers as its charter and
> protects the transparency of end to end Internet
> - or is turning to the IETF and the Internet to confirm your understanding
> of its Charter.
>
> I do not see how this position would be off topic and out of place. It
> concerns the WG and its Charter, and shall be made on its mailing list. Some
> who are not members of france @ large have expressed that the WG is going
> too far. JFC told us to stay zen - that our goal is to have IDNA2008
> published as soon as possible. That's what I try to do. Please do not force
> us to appeal to the IESG / IAB. Many will say that you want to delay
> IDNA2008 a few months.
>
> I am also a sick old man, who agreed to fight for its culture against the
> mammoth as your company: I do not have the resources and strength of such an
> effort.
>
> Texte original en français
> ------------------------------------
> Je suis désolé que vous vous mépreniez. Et je vous prie d'en excuser mon
> anglais et ma rudesse, de Breton et de professeur de lycée en retraite. Il
> est tout a fait possible qu'un groupe d'ingénieurs de l'IETF nouvelle, telle
> que maintenant définie(1) par son sponsor financier, puisse prendre des
> décisions fondamentales, en terme de linguistique et d'orthographe pour le
> monde entier. Cependant, je ne pense pas que ceci relève de notre charter,
> et je pense que cela nous conduit directement à un IETF/LC long, dispendieux
> et négatif. Ce qui ne devrait pas être notre intérêt.
>
> Cependant, je ne pense pas que les gens n'appartenant pas à l'ASWIG qui ont
> supporté la décision TATWEEL; ajouté à l'ASWIG qui n'a pas eu l'unanimité
> qu'elle requiert; ajouté à l'opposition vibrante de quatre membres de
> france at large; forment un consensus. Ou alors dans les conditions de cette
> IETF nouvelle (1) où la participation est par entreprises et organisations
> (et chiffre d'affaires ?): ceci est une surprise pour beaucoup de monde.
> Nous comprenons mieux récent DoS du FLOSS. Voulons-nous un DoS contre les
> positions "consensuelles" de ce WG quant à sa légitimité et son désintérêt
> pour le support de l'orthographe française ? Cela nous ferait perdre du
> temps et france at large (que je représente en l'absence de JFC) espère aider
> à l'empêcher.
>
> C'est pourquoi, je le crois, il est plus favorable pour une meilleur,
> paisible et fructueux travail de ce groupe que:
> - soit il se limite lui-même à ce que tous considèrent comme son charter et
> protège la transparence end to end de l'internet,
> - soit is se retourne vers la communauté IETF et Internet pour confirmer
> votre compréhension de son Charter.
>
> Je ne vois pas en quoi cette position serait off topic et out of place.
> Elle concerne ce WG et son Charter, et elle est faite sur sa liste de
> diffusion. Certains qui ne sont pas membres de france at large ont exprimé
> que ce WG va trop loin. JFC nous a dit de rester zen - que notre but est
> d'avoir IDNA2008 publié le plus vite possible. C'est ce que je tente de
> faire. S'il vous plait, ne nous obligez pas à un appel à l'IESG/IAB.
> Beaucoup vont dire que vous voulez retarder IDNA2008 de quelques mois de
> plus.
>
> Je suis aussi un vieil homme malade, qui a accepté de se battre pour sa
> culture contre des mammouth comme votre société: je n'ai pas les moyens et
> la force d'un tel effort.
>
> ---
>
> (1) *PREMIER INTERNET STANDARDS BODY* - The Internet Society (ISOC) is the
> organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the
> premier Internet standards body in the world. *The IETF has strong
> participation from the computing, networking, and telecommunications
> industries, from companies large and small,* and is responsible for
> developing the
> Internet’s technical foundations through its open global forum. Our
> combined efforts are the foundation of every modern network or Internet
> product and service. In addition, we provide critical support in many
> aspects of the global deployment of the Internet.
>
> Google translated: The association you have created seems to have acquired
> the IETF. It must be profitable. It was a forum for the individual engineer.
> It is now a combination of large and small companies. Mr. Cerf, you belong
> to a big company, me to a small association of lead users. What are the new
> rules to combine our efforts?
>
> Français dans le texte : L'association que vous avez créée semble avoir
> racheté l'IETF. Il faut la rentabiliser. C'était un forum d'ingénieur
> individuels. C'est maintenant une combinaison de grosse et petite
> compagnies. Mr. Cerf, vous appartenez à une grosse companie, moi à une
> petite association de lead users. Quelles sont les nouvelles règles pour
> combiner nos efforts?
>
> *RFC FUNDING* - The Internet Society provides a major source of funding
> and support for the
> IETF and its processes. Notably, the Internet Society funds 100% of the RFC
> Editor function:
> the RFC Editor is the publisher of the RFC’s (Requests for Comments) and is
> responsible for their
> final editorial review. The RFC’s began in 1969, and document many aspects
> of ‘computer communications’.
> They focus on networking standards, protocols and procedures, as well as
> key programs
> and concepts (see www.rfc-editor.org/overview.html). The RFCs are
> fundamental to a
> strong and secure Internet.
>
> *INTERNET STANDARDS SUPPORT* - ISOC’s contributions also extend to the
> legal, insurance
> and public relations support we provide to the IETF. We are the IETF’s sole
> source of
> financial support apart from IETF meeting fees. Support from companies,
> whose products and
> services so clearly depend on the standards developed by the IETF, is
> essential.
>
> *BUILDING THE FUTURE INTERNET* - By becoming an Internet Society
> Organization
> Member, you will help ensure the continued work of the IETF in creating,
> reviewing and publishing
> the standards on which the Internet is built; and help ensure a robust and
> ever expanding
> Internet presence around the world.
>
> *Supporting our Platinum Program gives your company the ability to focus
> your contributions
> specifically on the essential work of the IETF and our Standards
> activities.*
>
> Platinum Member <http://www.isoc.org/members/platinum.shtml>
>
>    - Afilias Limited <http://www.afilias.com/>
>    - Alcatel-Lucent <http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/>
>    - ARIN <http://www.arin.net/>
>    - Cisco Systems, Inc. * <http://www.cisco.com/>
>    - Comcast <http://www.comcast.com/>
>    - Juniper Networks <http://www.juniper.net/>
>    - RIPE NCC <http://www.ripe.net/>
>
> Gold Member <http://www.isoc.org/orgs/gold.shtml>
>
>    - APNIC <http://www.apnic.net/>
>    - Google <http://www.google.com/>
>    - Internet Initiative Japan (IIJ) * <http://www.iij.ad.jp/en>
>    - Microsoft * <http://www.microsoft.com/>
>    - Nominet UK <http://www.nic.uk/>
>    - US Department of Defense (DISA) <http://www.disa.mil/>
>
>
>
> 2009/4/13 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>
>
>> M. Bleriot,
>>
>> I consider postings that claim that this working group is not empowered to
>> reach consensus on matters of direct concern to its charter and off topic
>> and out of place. If you persist in posting these kinds of assertions, I
>> will remove your access to the distribution list.
>>
>> vint cerf
>>
>>
>> On 4/13/09, LB <lbleriot at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Google translation:
>>> ---------------------------
>>> Sorry, but I'm going to be brutal to be loyal to this group.
>>>
>>> This working group has led what is known as the "tatweel trap" to the
>>> end.
>>>
>>> There is now a disconnect between the engineers of the California
>>> industry, and people and cultures of the world. This is a commercial risk to
>>> the stakeholders that lead ISOC / IETF [
>>> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/orgwhyjoin/membership2.pdf] and [
>>> http://www.isoc .org / orgs / members.php]. Now many will consider that
>>> some of these engineers sponsors of ISOC, against millions of people,
>>> thinkers, linguists, philosophers, politicians, experts, academics,
>>> individuals, children around the world.
>>>
>>> Because it was not whether the Arab character TATWEEL is helpful or not
>>> in a domain name, but set a precedent for legitimizing the right of
>>> engineers (as for langtags) to do so.
>>>
>>> A precedent which will, it seems, be immediately repeated as to assert
>>> that legitimacy. This will not help us to resume work peaceful. In addition
>>> one can see in the archives of the WG / IDNABIS that the "overwhelming
>>> consensus" is a dozen engineers, the lack of consensus required by ASWIG and
>>> active opposition of four French-WG Members , one banished to document the
>>> reasons for this opposition. Without counting those who have left the list
>>> or did not come, considering that the debate was inappropriate with the real
>>> problems. They also show that this decision follows a copy of an email from
>>> a Canadian expert, universally acknowledged, that documents the limited use
>>> of Unicode by the BBC International.
>>>
>>> I agree with JFC's recent mail, I do not know if this day is sad, or if
>>> it is full of hope. Because it may be the end of Internationalization and
>>> the beginning of the Multilinguisation. This is due to concentrated efforts
>>> in the world and to ICANN. But at least the problem is posed. Could we not
>>> now simply:
>>>
>>> - Request a confirmation of the Charter for the future LC / IETF is going
>>> well?
>>> - Or keep the network transparent to Unicode end?
>>> - Or to recognize that the goal is to lose time.
>>>
>>> I do not understand everything. But I understand / feel that it is all
>>> too rigid. Look at the case of french!
>>>
>>> That is why I share the position of Xavier to raise issues and to await
>>> the response from John Klensin and comments by Patrick. I also trust Pete.
>>> And I await the return of the JFC Easter holiday :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> French original:
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> Désolé, mais je vais être brutal pour être loyal à ce groupe.
>>>
>>> Ce groupe de travail a conduit ce qui est surnommé comme le "tatweel
>>> trap" jusqu'au bout.
>>>
>>> Il y a maintenant une rupture entre les ingénieurs de l'industrie
>>> californienne, et les gens et les cultures du reste du monde. C'est
>>> commercialement un grand risque pour les "parties prenantes" qui mènent
>>> l'ISOC/IETF [
>>> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/orgwhyjoin/membership2.pdf] et [
>>> http://www.isoc.org/orgs/members.php]. Maintenant beaucoup vont
>>> considérer que c'est quelques ingénieurs de ces sponsors de l'ISOC, contre
>>> des millions de gens, penseurs, linguistes, philosophes, politiques,
>>> légistes, universitaires, individus, enfants du monde entier.
>>>
>>> Car il ne s'agissait pas de savoir si ce caractère arabe TATWEEL est
>>> utile ou pas dans un nom de domaine, mais créer un précédent pour légitimer
>>> le droit de ces ingénieurs (comme pour les langtags) à le faire.
>>>
>>> Un précédent, qui va, semble-t-il, être immédiatement répété comme pour
>>> affirmer cette légitimité. Ceci ne va pas nous aider à reprendre un travail
>>> paisible. En plus chacun peut voir dans les archives du WG/IDNABIS que
>>> l'"overwhelming consensus" représente une dizaine d'ingénieurs, plus
>>> l'absence du consensus total requis par l'ASWIG, et l'opposition active de
>>> quatre Français WG-Members, dont un banni pour documenter les raisons de
>>> cette opposition. Sans compter ceux qui ont quitté cette liste ou ne sont
>>> pas venus, estimant que le débat est inadéquat avec les problèmes réels.
>>> Elles montreront aussi que cette décision suit la copie d'un mail d'un
>>> expert canadien, universellement reconnu, qui documente l'utilisation
>>> limitée d'Unicode par la BBC Internationale.
>>>
>>> Je suis d'accord avec JFC's recent mail: je ne sais pas si ce jour est
>>> triste, ou bien s'il est plein d'espoir. Car c'est peut-être la fin de
>>> l'Internationalization et le début de la Multilinguisation. Ceci est en
>>> raison des efforts convergents en cours dans le monde et à l'ICANN. Mais au
>>> moins le problème est posé. Ne pourrions nous pas maintenant simplement :
>>>
>>> - demander une confirmation du Charter pour que le futur LC/IETF se passe
>>> bien?
>>> - ou conserver le niveau réseau transparent à Unicode de bout en bout?
>>> - ou alors de reconnaitre que le but est de faire encore perdre du temps.
>>>
>>> Je ne comprends pas tout. Mais je comprends/sens que tout cela est trop
>>> rigide. Regardez le cas du français !!!
>>>
>>> C'est pourquoi je partage la position de Xavier qui est de soulever les
>>> problèmes et d'attendre la réponse de John Klensin et les commentaires de
>>> Patrick. Je fais aussi confiance à Pete. Et j'attends le retour de JFC de
>>> vacances de Pâques.
>>>
>>> --
>>> LB
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> LB
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090413/fd8d2558/attachment-0001.htm