At 17:07 22/01/2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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?
Dear Margaret,
I apologized for the confusion I unwillingly created. I wrongly used
the word "filibustering". "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" and "Davy
Crockett" pictures give a different and noble idea of
"filibustering". I took it for what a lonesome democratic, dedicated
and imaginative "freebooter" (flibustier in French) would do, to
force positive results, against a powerful lobby defending private
interests' status-quo.
I was explained by lawyers I was mistaken. They explained me what
Harald engaged was a filibuster to interfere with my current IAB and
IETF appeals. One said "Mr. Smith was at the IETF". They called my
action to restlessly force quality, ethic and adequacy "smart activism", etc.
As a user, shopping for quality solutions for my digital global
ecosystem, I want (and obtained) simple things:
(1) the RFC 3066 bis pollution to be cleaned. Because it hurt my job
and the whole world (with no real advantage for its proponents). I
obtained this through that "smart activism" (the most efficient and
less disruptive way I found) at the IETF, the WSIS, etc.. My mails
and attitude (looking a boring fool) forced the WG to clean its
document, without starting a conflict where my supporters would have
joined. I made a large number of contributions (read them and tell me
if they are off-topic): the WG usually adopted/confirmed the
opposite. This is not always in the text, but the responses are in
the records. For further user's FAQ. I did not want to convince (I
oppose a well established Unicode Globalization US-centric
doctrine). I just carried QA. Now, other generalised language naming
(endorsed by the Tunis documents) and documentation propositions can
now interoperate with it.
(2) however such interoperation still calls for:
(a) an interface and a minimum level of security RFC 3066 bis does
not provide. Hence the IESG appeal. If you and IAB deny my
propositions in that area everyone will know (security) and we will
patch the interface.
(b) the IANA registry cooperation: no problem when the
ietf-languages IANA list is operated, published and controlled by the
IANA, and respect the Tunis global agreement for multilingualisation.
This will be a loss of control for its current owners. Hence their
anti-EU trap and my "5th" ban: should I really waste more time and
bore everyone appealing against this new vaporware? I can appeal if
you really want it...
(3) the demonstration the IETF wants to deliver the ethical,
pertinent and multilingual innovation we need. This explains most of
my ietf@xxxxxxxx mails. Look at them: I suggest, prod, etc. without
initiating debates on issues where there no real thinking yet. I
understand conservative minds do not like it, but it is quite
efficient in establishing relations with open minded smart people,
and in obtaining results. I was going away without noise. Now may be
Harald will make a few more to get interested in the architecture TF
some of these people plan with me?
Take care.
jfc
> -----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