Two appeals have been responded today. A first reading shows an
impressive distance between the response and the matter of the
appeal. By respect for the IETF and duty to the IETF users I
represent, I will however appeal to the IAB.
The real issue is the interoperability between the Multilingual
Internet as the world wants it, and the Internationalized Internet as
a small number of locally dominant stakeholders wants to impose it.
This is why it is important to obtain clear texts permitting clear
interconnects, or clear circumventions. I painstakingly obtained such
texts with RFC 3066 Bis together with the serious IESG response to my
appeal. The second BCP 47 Draft has been approved. As for the first
part, it will be carefully appealed to obtain a complete review of
the BCP 47, in the hope the IESG's answer will be of the same quality
as for the first part. If necessary and appeal to the IAB will be
carried, in the hope to force the IESG to respect our RFC 3066 Bis consensus.
The interest of the today answers is to confirm that the current
violation of the RFC 3066 Bis is a deliberate IESG policy, purposely
reinstalling the confusion RFC 3066 Bis prevents. This is why it is
important to carry the full appeal procedure, so no one can doubt
that every clarification effort has been undertaken and everyone can
benefit from it.
Then, users from all over the world and the international community
will decide how to consider the influence (cf. RFC 3935) of so few
using their accidental dominant position to curb the culture, the
languages, the expectations, the economy of so many, instead of serving them.
Ietf mailing list