RE: [ga] Haiti, the Internet and ICANN
At 10:40 05/07/2007, sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Sotiris, > > I don't know what you mean by "US law", but .IQ has been redelegated upon > request of the government of Iraq, following the same IANA procedures that > have been applied for all redelegations. Dear Sotiris, You have to chose sides first if you want to be consistent. Between the US/GB/AU/NZ English Internationalized Internet dominated by e-commerce considerations (the system ICANN fits in, but everyone there has not been told), and the WSIS multilingual Internet where every language could be technically supported as English is, endangering the de facto English dominated e-commerce status quo. In this, the ambiguity is the British position, like for Iraq. They created a false European position in Tunis opposing the USA, squeezing the other opposing countries, and eventually accepting a compromise with the USA which puts the practical technical multilingualisation aside, insuring the pivotal role of English. Brilliant! Moreover the other European did not understand. The Internet technology remains "presentation layer"less and under the continuated US/GB/AU/NZ/etc. e-commerce dominance.. A presentation layer would permit an immediate multilingual support, and much much more: it would present people with a French, a Greek, etc. vision of the Internet, never mind may happen on the English presentation. This US/AU/GB/NZ policy is consistent, well structured, well influencing, and well supported at ICANN, IETF and ISO. The rest of the world accepted it up to now as less a pain than to build another technology. The problem is that, more and more, it becomes possible (what I try to explain for years) to best fake that presentation layer on THIS technology, without changing anything for the other users. Currently, Debbie Garside happens to be at the core of a clever strategy to prevent this. This is why her presence is highly important: how do you want to find solutions without talking, and to talk without interlocutors. This is why I intend to propose her and her powerful allies a public, transparent, and technical dialogue. Because we all have to lose if we do not agree, and to win if we do. So, let you chose your reference (nobody opposes, but if you want to dialog, you must know your own position). Dont attack the person you have to discuss with, even if you do not like her positions. Try to understand her and come with a possible consensus, i.e. something which fully support her and your positions. Is that not fair? Cheers. jfc
|