<quote of the report>1. examination of the impossibility of a generalised end to end interoperability in using WG-ltru proposed langtags due to necessary information not being conveyed from author to reader (referent, context, date of the registry version).
2. consideration of the now publicly known competition of major stakeholders' groups over a de facto exclusive on "langtag" management. The different motivations (printing industry global problems, OS area control, IANA control, racial/cultural profiling, shaping the world, etc.) have been discussed. General agreement is that only a user-centric open architecture Multilingual Internet can address this situation and prevent the Internet balkanisation the "internationalisation", and its resulting commercial confusion, leads back to.
3. analysis of the Draft authors' and Peter Constable's "langtag" concept. The conclusion was that unfortunately:
- this vision is foreign to networking.
- this vision is foreign to multilingualism and not even fully
"internationalised".
- there is little hope of an improvement in a near future since
the number of contributors is extremely low and none of the really
concerned stakeholders (non-koine mother tongue literary and cultural
academics, artists, searcher, authors, trainers, etc.. related
industries and consumers from every country) is involved or informed.
4. commendation of JFC Morfin, for his WG-ltru endeavor to obtain a far clearer Draft than in December and for publicly exposing the commercial interests behind the Draft, and of those who contributed in gaining the interest or support of Governments, organisations or coporations.
5. consensus to proceed according to June 22nd's agreement (JFC's mail):- the prepared langroot file should be put online. It should progressively document the five elements currently analysed as needed by end to end interoperability and brain to brain interintelligibility: language, mode, community, referent and context.
- to pursue the effort of the participants towards an independent entity assuming an open registration service until it may become a IANA open process. AFRAC will temporarily assume project leadership (JFCM abstained on this very last point)
- to develop the registry management and necessary presentation tools. - to organise a http://langroot.org access engine based upon the langroot and - to support its specialised replication for ISO 11179 compliant projects- to use it together with the AFRAC experimentation as a part of the common DRS (distributed registry system) R&D work.
- to maintain a documentation of that effort via the IETF, and other SDOs and international entities, informational Drafts and documents (rough consensus: two participants opposing that IETF is neither multicultural nor competent in multilateral areas).
- to support the equal lingual opportunity declaration proposed by the NICSO (http://nicso.org/equilang.pdf)
- to help the missing technical competence and R&D in networking language issues, in participating (in spite of scarce resources) into the various standardisation processes, but in trying to discourage "culturally civic" reactions. Agreement is the need is for education, not for grouped activism.
</quote> jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.