Hi Jefsey, In this post and in at least one other recent post you talk about filibustering on various mailing lists. I would like to make sure that I understand what you are talking about, because this is very important to my assessment of the proposed PR-Action. Prior to these posts, I did not understand why you were making so many clearly off-topic posts on these lists, but I did not assume that you were intentionally attempting to disrupt the work of the IETF. In the U.S. filibustering is a tactic used in the U.S. Senate that abuses a loophole in the Senate rules to _intentionally_ block the work of the senate for some period of time. Filibustering is not a democratic right, and it is not a tactic that, IMO, should be used, encouraged or allowed on IETF mailing lists. I have read this post and other recent posts of yours as admissions that you are _intentionally_ disrupting the work of the ietf-languages@xxxxxxxx list and the LTRU WG mailing list via a tactic similar to filibustering. Is that a correct interpretation of your messages? Margaret > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:59 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Mr. Smith goes to the IETF > > As far I am concerned, the PR-action engaged against me by > Harald Alvestrand is per se of no interest. I just have some > general comments and one question about it, I will address separately. > > What is more interesting is how the IETF and the Internet > community may benefit from the three issues I raise: > multilingualism, ethic and user QA. The three of them have an > architectural impact (the IAB should be able to address > through the now silent IAB-discuss) and are part of a wide > "governance" change which question the RFC 3935 IETF mission. > These three questions (ethic and user QA being related in > part) are now under final escalation to the IAB. > > > At the present time, published contributions (Sam Hartman, > John Klensin, Harald Alvstrand) agree with me: filibustering, > however a democratic US invention, is a pest. IETF should do > everything not to need it (much more efficient than to fight > it). I think my contributions are of interest to consider in > this area. I suppose all the PESCI member are already on the > two copied lists. > > > 1. due to the importance of the "war on culture" > "internationalization" represents, I was proposed support and > funding to oppose it. The problem are an architectural layer > violation, a narrow vision and a lack of information. Not a > lack of competence. To kill the IETF for that was inadequate > (or premature). I am already a problem, would we have been > two or three of us ... Had we been 200 as I was proposed ... > I have computed that $ 20.000 are enough to block the IETF. > This can be discussed, but this is something we should > urgently consider, when political, commercial and civil > rights interests make the IETF, and most of all the IANA, a > key target (the USG says for sale- may be to protect it?). > > I refused it. > > 2. I proposed Brian Carpenter to get "would be filibusters" a > special status in the consensus process as "user QA rep". > With rights and duties. > > This was denied. > > 3. I proposed an evolution in the WG working method. In using > position links: every contributor expresses his positions on > a page he can update as the debate goes. I proposed this to > the GNSO WG-Review which supported it and I use it in some > work. This filters out "standard" participants' blabla. It > permits everyone to stay, every concept to be documented and > progressively trimmed, and external experts to call in. > Consensus is when all the positions are equivalent or have > identified they cannot agree. Consensus review is easy and > informative. > > This was not considered. > > 4. I have engaged an IESG, and now an IAB appeal, to know if > this kind of debate is, or not, part of the IETF. IESG said > "no". I want a confirmation by the IAB (so no one can claim > there is a conflict) before engaging into the organisation of > a solution. My solution is a dedicated TF sharing into the > Internet standard process and reviewing the Charters and the > Drafts during the LC, or upon request. That TF would > permanently interact with the users. I think it can be > engaged in ethic (COI and societal impact) and "governance" > issues. The interest is that there can be several TF until > one emerges as a stable and productive solution. I would > favor it to be eventually part of ISOC and to interface (and > protect the IETF from) the IGF. > > This is under final consideration. Interested people can > share in a Draft. > > > This IETF has to understand that the Internet has become mature. > Mature for a product - and specially for a communication > technology - is when the technology is no more the leader but > when usage decides. > This is what they call "governance". This means that the IGF > is going to deliver scores of Jefseys. Engineers who can code > user response as per the user' requests (far more complex > than what IETF does today). > The NSF GENI project will not be alone. > > I still consider there is a difference between specifying > (Charter) and documenting (WG work). But most, because they > will be from Lobbies or Govs, will not bother. This will lead > to balkanization and to IETF bottle necks. Already, I saw > that with the lobby driven > WG-LTRU: the Charter was not considered. WG Consensus by > exhaustion, IETF consensus by disinterest and IESG consensus > by impossible knowledge of everything lead to dispute like > the one I have with Harald. There will be scores of them soon > if we do not find a structural solution. > > jfc > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf