[ga] 13 to 14

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 14:54 06/10/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> Well done JFC you have managed to mention me 14 times in this 
> email.  Most of the content has just enough truth to make people 
> believe it.  However, JFC I find it very sad that you have to make 
> so many false claims wrt the work that others have done.  The only 
> dialog you are having with ISO JFC or anyone else for that matter, 
> is one way... nobody responds to trolls who claim the work of 
> others, cybersquat domains and threaten legal action all the while 
> sending troll like emails spouting lie after lie after lie.  What 
> work is it that you have actually achieved JFC because all I can see 
> is the work of others?  Who exactly are you dealing with at ISO JFC 
> because as far as I am aware the rule has been not to respond to you 
> since you threatened legal action for some ridiculously obscure 
> reason.  How many emails have you sent so far this week JFC? to my 
> colleagues at ISO, WLDC, GeoLang, BSI.  What a shame JFC I am sure 
> that there is an intelligent man underneath all your troll like 
> ways.  What a shame JFC that you continue to cybersquat wldc.org... 
> hope you have fun with it.  What a shame you have to tell so many 
> untruths JFC.  What a shame JFC for the type of life you have that 
> makes this sort of thing necessary for you.  I feel sorry for you 
> JFC.  Rest assured JFC I will never work with you so maybe you 
> should give up trying to wheedle your way in.  Sorry I only managed 
> to mention your name 12 times...   Feel free to attack me again and 
> again I'm used to it now as are the British and French governments.
> Have a nice day JFC (13)
> Debbie
In order to cool down this odd interview, I took some time to answer. 
Debbie seems to want to hurt herself and stalk me on this mailing 
list. This has no real interest since she does want to help all of us 
in telling where I could be wrong. I can however tell where is she is 
wrong: in reading me and some of her allies. I hope this may help her 
interests.
 However, this does permit the GA to be the place to discuss the 
Multilingual and Semantic Internet key issue which is excluded 
everywhere else. Is this due to the impact on the DNS market and on 
the Internet politically decentralized evolution? Some info to better 
understand. As I said, on the eigth people I consider as truly 
instrumental in the Multilingual Internet issue, probably more than 
half of them are active or lurkers on this list.

My trade

My trade area for more than two decades is the extended network 
services. Basic services are related to telecoms, value added to 
datacoms [the Internet]). Extended services are related to metacoms, 
which are semantic, pragmatic, semiotic, infomation meaning, 
inter-intelligence etc. oriented services. I was Director of Extended 
Services at world leader Tymnet in 1985, in turn analysing the 
concept throughout the international public network that we 
pionneered starting from 1977.
This simple model helps explain what it covers exactly:

- telecoms are about plug to plus interconnectibility. They are 
usually centralised. They use a physical infrastructure to carry 
electrical signals.
- datacoms are about end to end interoperability. They are usually 
decentralised. They use digital networking protocols to transport content.
- metacoms are about brain to brain interintelligibility. They are 
usually distributed. They need referential systems to uderstand the 
semantic meanings they convey.
Metacoms are about relational spaces: the networks of the network of networks.


A language based architectured pile

Semantic processing necessarily calls for the Internet's support of languages.

Based on that language support, it needs a referential system: the 
content of search engines, databases, directories, ontologies, 
registries, standard tables, dictionaries, rules, knowledge, etc. 
that makes the common culture of its relational spaces.
Different architectures can be imagined in order to gather, maintain, 
distribute, and present the various referent, contextual [related to 
a relation set], and personal instanciations, via data, metadata, and 
syllodata exchanges.

The TCP/IP proposition

The TCP/IP model has three main difficulties with this.

1. it has no presentation layer.
2. it does not clearly define the border between datacoms (digital 
protocols) and metacoms (semantics: ex. Domain Names mnemomics, IDN)
3. it is linguistically biased: it is "e-built-in" (English inside).


The responses:

There are three types of response, with eight persons that _really_ 
influence/father them (I will only quote some of them due to the 
climate unfortunately maintained on this issue - three are well known 
as active in the IDN area and do not support any specific type of response):
1. American globalization of the English language: US ASCII 
internationalization + localization for all the network aspects 
(including referentials) + filtering through langtags. It is 
centralized around the IANA. For more than two decades this has been 
the US industry, IETF, and Unix world, approach. It works: don't try 
to fix it. World practice must adapt to the Internet RFCs.
The gurus are: Mark Davis, President of Unicode and the current 
author of BCP47, and Harald Alvestrand, Unicode and ICANN BoD Member, 
and first author of BCP47.
2. English globalization: it understands the intrinsic language and 
cultural diversity of the world, and the need for a flexible 
internationalization, which is to be decentralised through an 
accepted and stable referential system such as the one that ISO 
standards (printed, CD database, and ISO 11179 registries) offer.
It opposes the WTC vision, which permits e-commerce to be language 
independent, and the vote of ISO 3166-1:2006 as a paradigm for 
autonomous mutually interoperable linguistic copies of it. It wants 
an English interoperable, centraly managed, unique table, in line 
with the existing Internet technology.
The main actor of this middle-proposition is Debbie Garside. She 
sided with me to oppose BCP47 until interoperability and language 
diversity were preserved, and then joined forces with other 
internationalization oriented experts, rallying them through her 
WLDC. She also started her GeoLang commercial company to provide and 
maintain the corresponding referents.
3. Distributed multilateralization. It is based on local/language 
empowerment, metaintelligence, and subsidiarity _principles_. It 
calls for a normative [norm: description of normality] 
interoperability as a basis for standardization diversity [standard: 
how one wants to use normality].
It is in strict conformance with the voted ISO 3166-1:2006 paradigm 
(example serving as a model), which documents national administrative 
languages in compliance with the WTO, WIPO, Banks, Transportations, 
etc. long standing rules and expectations. Stability results from 
adapting to the world acknowledged and stable practices (normality).
The focal point is the ISO 3166/MA where ICANN is represented. I 
support this approach as a pioneer of the Multilingual Internet. 
TheMultilingual Distributed Referential System (MDRS) is a service 
project in continuity with the international referent that my 
non-profit has operated since 1978. It had been delayed for three 
years because of the lack of a confirmed world consensus, which will 
be declared on October 10th.

Debbie as a "competition"

One easily understands that I have two normative competitors: the 
Unicode consortium (IBM, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, etc.) on the 
centralization side and Debbie on the decentralization side. And a 
single normative referent business competitor: Debbie.
She has made an NWIP that was introduced by the UK in order to 
"correct" the ISO 3166-1:2006 paradigm, and to replace it with her 
decentralized internationalization, to be managed by her Geolang 
company, and subsequently push me out of my own business and revenues.
However,
- her NWIP was not supported, in turn showing that her proposition is 
not what the world wants to work on. It may also be that she was 
protected by her friends from my help in writting a text that would 
have succeeded.
- she should understand that, if the world is demanding 
multilingualization and semantics, it still is still at the 
internationalization and digital levels and needs help, and has big 
budgets ready for our kind of offers.
The response received by her NWIP is, in fact, a major business 
opportunity for her she is losing in mistakenly fighting me. There is 
a need for a huge transition (probably one or two decades, more than 
for IPv4/IPv6 transition). This means continuous parallel 
development, and further permanent adaptation and complementarity. 
This is a work that I am not competent, interested, or welcomed to 
do, but is exactly where her work currently is. However, the time 
windows is short for her, before some of her big or introduced allies 
pick the opporunity if she does not move quick (one already contacted me).
This is why I proposed a coopetition agreement to everyone she could 
have led, before we knew the result of her proposition. She 
slanderously responded on this mailing list. She does not want to 
work with me: she has not understood yet what "coopetition" means. I 
do not want either to work with people who wants to kill me!
Now that the ISO Members have confirmed their ISO 3166-1:2006 
paradigm, I suggest her to use the time remaining until Thursday the 
10th (the official announcement will be four weeks after the vote was 
closed, while the result will have been known for a while) not to try 
to trick me, but to try to position herself as the "transition 
process" leader. However, I will not be more royalist than the queen.
My competition at the IETF thinks that they have every right to 
insult me at length online and to exclude me, as long as I win at the 
end of the technical day. Debbie is attempting to import the practice 
here, just as she has done successfully at the ISO.
Why would I oppose her idea? It works so well for her and for me.
jfc