RE: [ga] Haiti, the Internet and ICANN

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JFC wrote:

> 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.

Wrt WSIS, I was in Tunis on other business, as far as I can see, there are
pretty active discussions, planning and standards development activities
ongoing in order to facilitate a multi-lingual internet.

> 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. 

Other than some political cloak and dagger insinuations, I have not the
foggiest idea of what you are talking about.  

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin
> Sent: 05 July 2007 14:13
> To: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: 'Debbie Garside'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.
> >
> >Ok, so we're going to have to continue playing this game... 
> fine. Tell 
> >us Roberto, why was the .IQ registry re-delegated?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>