Hi - > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John C Klensin" <john@xxxxxxx> > Cc: "Thomas Narten" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "IETF list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "Robert Elz" <kre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:40 AM > Subject: Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option) ... > 2. this concerned list (ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) is not an IETF list, > but an Harald Alvestrand's private mailing list. At least this what Harald > told me, to be able to ban me, without proper procedure, AD protection and > appeal possibilities RFC 3494 would have granted me. I must say that, among > others, I demand for months that list to be set-up as a IANA mailing list > it is to be (RFC 3066) with all the publicity, IANA access and decorum the > matter requires;. In the process I may have trolled a little bit to trap > Harald in acknowledging the situation :-). Everything is on-line. The mailing service for ietf-languages@xxxxxxxx happens to be provided by Harald. This is not unusual or improper, as has been explained to you on the ietf-languages list, as well as the ltru WG mailing list. Furthermore, your request to change the administration of the mailing list was rejected by WG consensus. Your bad behaviour on the ietf-languages@xxxxxxxx and ltru@xxxxxxxx lists (suspended twice on the former, once on the latter) and consistent efforts to delay progress on both lists have done little to enhance your credibility. Indeed, I was surprised when the ltru WG did NOT agree to add text to the draft on the registry to explicitly address the question of suspending disruptive elements on the ietf-languages@xxxxxxxx mailing list. ... > 4. everyone knows that for a long IETF has joined ITU and adopted the UN > system. So everyone knows that "419" comes from M.49 > http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm which is the Harald's > replacement for Jon Postel's RFC 1591 which selected ISO 3166. This is why > ".us" has now become ".840". Also everyone agrees "Americas" was is > ambiguous term: so the expert selected "419" which stands for "Latin > America and Caribbean" instead of "019" which stands for ... "Americas". > This means that for the IESG/IANA the USA have no New Mexico state (cf. > below). This is a gross misrepresentation. See http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-06.txt section 2.4.4, especially point (3) (D). ... > The review of the management of the IANA langtag registry is subject to > the work of the WG-ltru. http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html Thank you for the advertisement. We are very close to WG last call, so I urge those interested to join now. > Let me make some outreach for this important WG for the image of the IETF > in the international community, in an area where Culture Ministries, > academic people and ccTLD Managers, GAC Members, etc. are very concerned, > their language, culture and to some extent their economy are involved. I > note we are only two there having not English as a mother language, what is > not enough to provide the WG with the necessary diversity. Demonstrably false, and you know it. There are more than two WG participants whose first language is not English. Some members are linguists by training, and the WG includes experts in internationalization. Of course more would always be welcome, but I think those we have are up to the task. ... > The consistency with ISO 11179 (Registries continuity) and the work IETF > should carry in that area, is precisely what would prevent cases like the > HBH case and determine how such parameters should be recorded and where. ... The ltru WG consensus was to not delay our work in order to align with ISO 11179. Randy, ltru co-chair _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf