Subject: [iucg] Jefsey's disciples

From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:34:06 +0100

*Adrew Sullivan, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:*
"Nobody is trying to make domain name labels into language (well, maybe
Jefsey's disciples are, but leave that aside), but we have to be realistic
and understand that the utility and ease of a given set of labels is going
to be heavily conditioned by the socio-linguistic background of the person."
"Unfortunately, to that set the persons who assert that labels formed from
characters taken from Arabic Script must be "words" must be added. So,
Jefsey's disciples and a plurality of a vendor's forum, and I'd greatly
prefer if it was just Jefsey's disciples."

Dear Colleagues,

I am surprised by this. I assumed the target was to assess the technical
consensus in accepting to characters as PVALID. No to discriminate a
consensus on people's opinions.

One. Nobody is someone else's disciple, however some are others' employees.
I suspect I qualify as a "Jefsey's disciple". I am not (we had a recent
fundamental dispute on a mailing list which would disqualify me). We are
Internet lead users (i.e. @larges), members of the [email-masked] mailing
list, French speaking people gathered by the poor IDNA support of our French
language orthotypography, we need to support our ".fra" project.

Two. This is no reason for "leaving them/us asside". They/we are equal
members of this WG and equal contributors to its work. Actually, we already
engaged work to stabilize its quick deployment trough best user practices
publications (http://idna2010.org). Look we start being upset by all the
dillatory blahblah. We want IDNA published ASAP, so we can build our own
open Internet usage solutions and clarify the ICANN's attitude.

Three. I am at real loss when I try to understand how we could really help
filling the gap between some IETF participants and real world users, when
the matter is non protocol issues. Where I am certainly a supporter of
Jefsey is in his efforts to help in this area. May be he is wrong, but I can
only note how Jefsey is "left aside" by this WG.

*Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:*
"I don't know of any other organized group of "label to non-label" advocates
attempting to change label semantics".

A part from billion people nations....

Anyway, I do know an organized group attempting to change the human
semantics.
Actually, I am mainly interested in the only existing natural semantic
processor (i.e. the human brain): its I/O protocols are languages, its
syntax is orthotypographic. The Internet of the users?

Best

Patrick Suger.

---

From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:42:38 +0100

a very nice response from Andrew Sullivan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: 2009/12/1
Subject: Re: Jefsey's disciples
To: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>, Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>

I've taken the list addresses out because I think the lists have
enough on-topic traffic.  But you should feel free to forward this
wherever you want.

> consensus on people's opinions.

My apologies if you read what I wrote as somehow discriminatory.  I
was simply observing that there was in fact a proposal, which seemed
to come from Jefsey and some people who appear more often than not to
agree with him, to try to tag labels as being "in a language".  I
consider that effort to be wrong-headed, and I've argued why in the
past; but my point was to set that discussion aside, because it is
totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

As to discipleship, I'm happy to call you whatever you wish, except
that I always get the descriptions wrong.

But I do apologise if I offended you, since that was by no means my goal.

Best regards,

Andrew

--
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:43:17 +0100

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: 2009/12/1
Subject: Re: Jefsey's disciples
To: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>, Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>

Dear Andrew,

Sorry, I was not hurt, but dismayed.

You IETF people do obviously not undestand what we try to tell you and who
we are. We tried, probably clumsily, to tell it to you in your own words.
Now, we have agreed with Jefsey (again, but he is pushing naming for 30
years, so ...) the only solution is to _show_ it to you. These are the
Multilinc, .FRA and .PERFIDA projects (25.000 TLDs). We know what we do is a
possible mess. But better us than Russian mafia or American breakers. How to
learn if we do not test interplus. So we test Jefsey's config. Don't ask me
the detail, I am no techie.

But this means that I sail my totally independent cybship. No root server,
no ISP nameserver. No need for DNSSEC. No cache. We have scores of test
TLDs, in tenth of classes, using plenty of different presentations. At no
cost. No one being able to hack us. This just using plain off the shelves
BIND software. Under Linux and Windows. And Jesey's MYCANN test files.

I am afraid what you do not understand is that we are not techies, just
users. May be smart users, but there certainly are smarter than us around,
with another agenda than just using the internet better. I will be candid:
we do consider you as pretty well outdated in the way you use, admin and
govern of your own technology!  This is why we worry: you did not consider
the way everyone can freely start living in a no-ICANN, no root server
system, no unique root file Internet in using your own tools. So , you did
not consider how to protect us from all the dangers the use of your own
protocols and tools may expose us to.

We identified Interplus is the same for naming, IPv6 and economy as NATs are
for addressing. Except that you are those who developped it. And it still
works the same all over.

This is why we really are embarassed because obviously you do not understand
it.  And we think we got/are a real problem!
Best

Patrick Suger

2009/12/1 Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>

---

From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:44:20 +0100

Sorry we misunderstood.
A decent person.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: 2009/12/1
Subject: Re: Jefsey's disciples
To: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>, Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 09:04:30PM +0100, Patrick Suger wrote:

> we are.

Well, now it's my turn to be dismayed ;-) I don't know who "we IETF
people" are, except for those who participate in the mailing lists.
That's all there is to it.  The rest of it is noise: decisions taken
at face to face meetings are supposed to be confirmed on the list (as
they have been in this case, IMO).  There are no protocol police, as
you are discovering by performing your experiments.  Nobody has come
to knock on your virtual door, and nobody will.

> BIND software. Under Linux and Windows. And Jesey's MYCANN test files.

I'm glad you think this works.  But the IETF is about
_inter_operation, and your configuration won't work to allow me to
interoperate with you, and conversely.  That's the objection you've
heard.

But this is way off-topic for what we were discussing.  I wish you
luck with your experiments, and look forward to the report of how it
goes.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:44:48 +0100

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: 2009/12/1
Subject: Re: Jefsey's disciples
To: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>, Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>

> people" are, except for those who participate in the mailing lists.

Dear Andrew,
This is what I mean.

> to knock on your virtual door, and nobody will.

I am afraid there is some confusion. I talk of your common culture. The way
you approach the network architecture. Basically RFC 3935 being taken as a
Gospel and not as a non unique Charter. We understand you as well. No
problem. But you seem only to understand one another, not to be interested
in understanding us. And we are at loss knowing what to do.

> interoperate with you, and conversely.  That's the objection you've

We do not think it works. We see it works, we use it. We have no problem to
fully interface with everyone you interface. But are not bound to only
interface them, or to interface them in your way. We also can interface them
in our mutually agreed way when you do not support it.

> luck with your experiments, and look forward to the report of how it

Certainly this is our intent. This is why we joined the IUCG. However, we
just are users with our own life. Not specialised academics nor paid
employees. We could do with seome help.

Take care.

Patrick