Re: [idn] IDNA text presentation (was Document Status?)

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Hmm.  RAVEN didn't work quite like that.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, James Seng wrote:

> I have already response to you in private but just like to highlight one
> point:
> 
> "Lastly, and most importantly, IDN is an IETF working group. We move
> forward with Internet Drafts, rough consensus and running code. We focus on
> technical and we weight arguments on technical merits. Non-technical
> argument (such as "world-peace") unfortunately is not relevant."
> 
> -James Seng
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
> To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [idn] IDNA text presentation (was Document Status?)
> 
> 
> > Dear Seng,
> > you read me wrong since we probably agree on most. My intent was not to
> > start a dispute but to see completed a job well done, while the question
> is
> > "is the text describing it OK?" and my position is "no".
> >
> > On 16:48 04/09/02, James Seng said:
> > >Your thread, however is the only one I seen (or heard) from all who has
> > >read the draft to say they dont understand it.
> >
> > I dont say that. I say it is not properly worded to serve its purpose, at
> > least the way I personally see such a purpose from my own needs. Thats
> all.
> >
> > That alone would be a reason to discuss the wording. But I also see
> > disagreements in this WG that partly match my own disagreements. And I see
> > that a response to most is to put that text into a global wording
> > perspective. Only this will  permit this work to foster innovation as a
> > basic building block at a well identified place. Rather than to be
> > considered by most as a transition and to lead to endless sterile and
> > absurd conceptual disputes over wording misunderstandings and usage
> > duration. This work is well done, has a definitive purpose and will be
> with
> > us for a long. But it will be built coherently on top and aside: it must
> > not prevent or harm such a development process due to a standalone word
> use.
> >
> > I plan to extensively develop network system solutions based upon that
> RFC.
> > The current wording and lack of insertion into a global architecture
> > description will make it extremely difficult for human reasons. This will
> > also make it extremely difficult for every other Registry, Industry,
> > developer, governance body, other IETF WG, only because we will all talk
> > about the same things but in using our own layer's  words - different from
> > the words (even apparently opposing) used to described the core of our
> system.
> >
> > This will lead many gurus, trolls, politician, ignorant etc. to make us
> > fight, then try to concert over a common wording, etc.. until someone
> > rewrite that RFC in our common words. ie waste years and efforts for
> nothing.
> >
> > All this can be prevented in the simple way I document: this WG has solved
> > a problem; now it is to say the people going to use the solution and build
> > for it, on top or around what it does, what it does not, from where to
> > where. In using the same words that the people producing its inputs and
> > that the people using its outputs use, so they all understand clearly each
> > other.
> >
> > >So either the draft is really hard to understand and all those who are
> > >read it (including non-english speaker) have either somehow able to
> > >understand it or keep silent, or there might some other problem with the
> > >only one who fails to understand it.
> >
> > I do not think you need to be personal. All the more than I certainly
> > proposed that my position could be wrong and did joke about my Frenglish
> > and low IQ. And apologized for that.
> >
> > I think that those who read it either did not dare to comment because the
> > matter is complex and they feared to be responded as you does. The
> > difference with me is that I am one of the probably very few who wait for
> > the RFC. To build on top of it, with systems and users waiting for that.
> > For me the product of this WG is not its solutions - I take for granted
> > they are good ones - but the very text of the RFC. This is what we will
> use.
> >
> > If I gather developers, meet customers, lobby politicians and tell them
> "we
> > are going to use the RFC solutions which is perfect, but in a global
> > perspective they missed", I will have to convince them I am right. If I
> > succeed, I will then have to convince them that I however right to use
> such
> > a solution.
> >
> > >Therefore, I think we should drop this thread as I do not seen any rough
> > >consensus that there is anything unclear about the specification.
> >
> > If you mean the way the process is technically described and the way the
> > process works, you are right. This is my premise.
> >
> > If you mean the way its description can be used to describe a key building
> > block in the global Internet architecture, as far as my own developments
> > are concerned, I disagree.
> > jfc
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--