JFC and all my friends, Just this once, here is a rough translation of JFC's remarks which he chose to send in French for whatever reason: "I am sorry of this answer which shows our Gallic side once more to start with chamailler before advancing, once that one gave us a minister (what hangs to us with the nose after the local elections). You think what you want, but I fear that the current situation is really not carrying future. Each one wanting to be right, whereas we know all that at the end it is the user who is right but in very a long time. 1) the ALAC is the only place in Governorship ICANN/IETF where the user can express himself. To block in reciprocal ignorance, condescension, or simple unsuited information was the great play of the ICANN and the IETF. To continue would be a "crime of injures stability" because there is now the competition of the IGF and the WSIS Forum in gestation. The ALAC is the only bond ethiquement credible for the silent majority of the IGF with regard to "community Internet" (ICANN/IETF/IAB/ISOC) administrative of old. It is important that malgrès its limits it remains it, if not one goes to Split. 2) during years, I was blocked by the saying parisiannism "one cannot nothing make without the IETF" and the IETF saying "I know better than whoever" and being caught for the RFC 3935. Harald Alvestrand finally released me from all that. It is thus possible for me to advance what is not quite difficult: it is enough to implementer missing the presentation layer for those which want. And in fact the reasons for acceptance of the public miss. This made pass the Internet of its current situation "default" to the support of diversity. It would be however unconscious to make it in the form of small a patch making a large splatch. The things should be organized. The ICANN will disparaitra some in its current form (each presentation having de facto its ICANN, i.e. the application of the reinforced co-operation voted by the SMSI), but it is not necessary that it disappears from it in the disorder. It is necessary that it is the "big brother" of the others and progresses in the transition. Only the ALAC can give him the possibility of it by making the hinge, but it is necessary that it understands it and that the ICANN accepts it. Will the IETF also suffer from it, not because of the fact that it is, but because of what it wants to remain (RFC 3935) because decentralization will quickly cèdera the step in front of the distribution of the real world (the ISOC is besides of this opinion and took again my topic to use-centric so much of time opposed to the IETF [ which is leader ISOC? you? ]). The more so as with the presentation layer, of crafty one will not have of cease to restore the other missing layers, and the layers of the semantic level (my part). There too, it is necessary to avoid technical Split and to preserve the decoupling of the levels network, Internet, semantics. If not it will be the disorder, each one wanting to go too quickly (the IETF has blocked for 20 years what I did in 1985). Since you are one of rare the IETF to imply you in the ALAC and the ISOC, I propose to you to réflechir with all that. To try to include/understand (it is not simple) only French drafts (Bachollet, Muget, Benhamou, the Vault, Porteneuve, Lang, Pouzin, etc.) try to make, without good still to realize it (that converges [ explosivement ] towards the ICANN in Paris) and to continue to advisedly use the ISOC with an aim of doing something which speaks with all, benefits from the French contribution, and appaise their divisions imbeciles - born the reconnaitre is needed staff shortage making that the same ones are found together without being recognized. There are very few people who include/understand and are devoted about honestly. AMHA it is not worth while to divide them." My only comment is I have always been a very strong devotee to honesty, which far too often in various ICANN forums has been significantly neglected... JFC Morfin wrote:

At 06:37 28/02/2008, Franck Martin wrote:

...

JFC, Have you heard about the Internet? It is a great tool to do some research with... Google BCP38 or even look at it on wikipedia and you will know. I'm not here to train people, but will gladly answer their questions. Also look at BGP on wikipedia, even most of the IETF protocols and workgroups are explained on wikipedia. You will find quickly why BGP will not scale and why IETF is working on a replacement.

As for the IETF, I agree with Brian Carpenter, IETF is not here to do awareness, this is the role of ISOC. IETF is here to work on standards, and should be focused on just doing that.

ISOC has been lacking a proper education and policy department but now they have one, and produce now a very good IETF journal. So next time ask ISOC to come, you will see, it will work better.

Frank, je suis désolé de cette réponse qui montre une fois de plus notre côté gaulois de commencer par se chamailler avant d'avancer, une fois que l'on nous a donné un ministre (ce qui nous pend au nez après les municipales). Tu penses ce que tu veux, mais je crains que la situation actuelle soit réellement pas porteuse d'avenir. Chacun voulant avoir raison, alors que nous savons tous qu'à la fin c'est l'utilisateur qui a raison mais dans très longtemps.

1) L'ALAC est le seul lieu dans la Gouvernance ICANN/IETF où l'utilisateur peut s'exprimer. Le bloquer dans l'ignorance réciproque, la condescendance, ou la simple information inadaptée a été le grand jeu de l'ICANN et de l'IETF. Continuer serait un "crime de lèse stabilité" car il y a maintenant la concurrence de l'IGF et du WSIS Forum en gestation. L'ALAC est le seul lien ethiquement crédible pour la majorité silencieuse de l'IGF en ce qui concerne la "communauté internet" (ICANN/IETF/IAB/ISOC) gestionnaire de l'ancien. Il est important que malgrès ses limites elle le reste, sinon l'on va à un split.

2) pendant des années, j'ai été bloqué par le parisiannisme disant "on ne peut rien faire sans l'IETF" et l'IETF disant "je sais mieux que quiconque" et se prenant pour la RFC 3935. Harald Alvestrand m'a enfin libéré de tout cela. Il m'est donc possible d'avancer ce qui n'est pas bien difficile : il suffit d'implementer la couche présentation manquante pour ceux qui veulent. Et ce ne sont pas les motifs d'acceptation du public qui manquent. Ceci fait passer l'Internet de sa situation "default" actuelle au support de la diversité.

Ce serait toutefois inconscient de le faire sous la forme d'un petit patch faisant un gros splatch. Il faut organiser les choses. L'ICANN en disparaitra dans sa forme actuelle (chaque présentation ayant de facto son ICANN, c'est à dire l'application de la coopération renforcée votée par le SMSI), mais il ne faut pas qu'elle en disparaisse dans la pagaille. Il faut qu'elle soit le "grand frère" des autres et progresse dans la transition.

Seule l'ALAC peut lui en donner la possibilité en faisant la charnière, mais il faut qu'elle le comprenne et que l'ICANN l'accepte. L'IETF va aussi en souffrir, non pas en raison de ce qu'elle est, mais en raison de ce qu'elle veut rester (RFC 3935) car la décentralisation cèdera rapidement le pas devant la distribution du monde réel (l'ISOC est d'ailleurs de cet avis et a repris mon thème user-centric tant de fois opposé à l'IETF [qui est le leader ISOC? toi?]). D'autant qu'avec la couche présentation, des petits malins n'auront de cesse de rétablir les autres couches manquantes, et les couches du niveau sémantique (ma partie). Là aussi, il faut éviter un split technique et préserver le découplage des niveaux réseau, internet, sémantique. Sinon ce sera la pagaille, chacun voulant aller trop vite (l'IETF bloque depuis 20 ans ce que je faisais en 1985).

Puisque tu es un des rares IETF à t'impliquer dans l'ALAC et l'ISOC, je te propose de réflechir à tout cela. De tenter de comprendre (ce n'est pas simple) ce que les brouillons français (Bachollet, Muget, Benhamou, La Chapelle, Porteneuve, Lang, Pouzin, etc.) tentent de faire, sans bien encore s'en rendre compte (cela converge [explosivement] vers l'ICANN à Paris) et de continuer à utiliser l'ISOC a bon escient dans le but de faire quelque chose qui parle à tous, profite de l'apport français, et appaise leurs divisions imbéciles - nées il faut le reconnaitre du manque de personnel faisant que les mêmes se retrouvent ensemble sans se reconnaître. Il y a très peu de gens qui comprennent et se dévouent à peu près honnêtement. AMHA ce n'est pas la peine de les diviser.

A+ jfc

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827