technical position statement

Rémy Renardin renardinr at
Wed Apr 15 03:01:30 CEST 2009

Dear Chair,
I will not feed this troll.

I just want for the records to mention that all over the world, experts are
indeed used to this sort of ME's kind language. On-lookers (specially press
lurkers) should not take it, at the expense of its author and of the
seriousness of this WG, as a disgraceful set of  hurting and uncompetent
ad-homina. Its author, in his field, is an authority as repected, and as
disputed, as most of those who reviewed our statement. We actually consider
his post as a gentle mark of professional interest and possible support.

Please do not castigate.

Rémy Renardin

2009/4/15 Michael Everson <everson at>

> On 15 Apr 2009, at 00:27, Xavier Legoff wrote:
> >      1. our multilinguistics background makes us confident that true
> > linguists would never accept exceptions that they could not control
> > through the application.
> I am a "true linguist" and I have confidence in this project, its
> chair, and the consensus we have.
> >      2. the IETF has not the vocation nor the linguistic and
> > multilinguistic competencies to take on the sole responsibility to
> > change and document the orthography of billions of people.
> It doesn't. This is nonsense.
> >   * conformance with our Internet PLUS (parallelly layered user
> > systemic) architectural concept for the support of our own needs and
> > of the Internet evolution as introduced in an IUCG Draft that is
> > related to the IDNA2008 deployment.
> I don't see any reason for us to conform to your architectural concept.
> >   * this would make for the easier support of our work on a semantic
> > addressing system when the digital ecosystem convergence is meeting
> > the semantic emergence.
> At this point I think that you are yet another of Morfin's sock
> puppets. His "unique" linguistic constructions include, regularly,
> meaningless phrases like "digital ecosystem convergence is meeting the
> semantic emergence". I am sure that this means just as little in
> French as it does in English.
> > - The TATWEEL case
> >
> > The introduction of the call for consensus about the TATWEEL issue at
> > the protocol level was, therefore, not a surprise. It only confirmed
> > that the WG-IDNABIS considered itself legitimate in deciding on
> > content syntax, orthography, and semantics, and was not only obliged
> > to transparent content network transport.
> It *is* legitimate.
> > This being said, we wholly resent having had our Chair removed without
> > any good reason, to having our serious concerns and loyal actions
> > qualified as "fruitless excursions".
> He is a troll, in my view and my experience. Evidently I am not alone
> in holding this view.
> > Moreover, the WG is several months late on a matter that we billion
> > users consider as
> > extraordinarily urgent.
> Please do not pretend to speak for a billion users.
> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list