OT RE: [ga] 13 to 14

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please note that I have never worked with M. Morfin.
 
I have asked M. Morfin to stop emailing me (e-stalking) and will respond no
further to his ludicrous views either on list or off list.  
 
Debbie Garside
 


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
JFC Morfin
Sent: 09 October 2007 13:26
To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ga] 13 to 14


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