Dave and all former DNSO GA members and stakeholders/users as well
as IETF participants,
Dave Aronson wrote:
On Wed March 17 2004 02:44, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Dave Aronson wrote:
...
> > Well excuuuuuuuuuse... meeeeee!!! B-P Your diatribe that I
> > responded to, was the first appearance of this thread on the IETF
> > list, at least according to my trash-folder.
>
> No excuse Dave as this thread originated on the DNSO GA forum,
> and your previous response did a disservice to others on that forum
> by you removing ga(_at_)gnso(_dot_)icann(_dot_)org from the recipients of
that forum.
Crossposting leads to missed connections, whether on email lists or
Usenet, so I generally don't post discussions to multiple lists or
newsgroups. I'll leave it in this time....
Well here we disagree rather significantly. However I "CC'ed" and
not cross posted. However also, anytime one is discussing other
groups from one forum in another using email, one should as a matter
of common decency include that forums participants, ergo "CC" that
forum..
> > > > 1) The people at the UN are, generally speaking, career
> > > > diplomats. Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of
> > > > their way of life.
> > >
> > > This is true in some UN agencies, and certainly not in others
> > > as several are almost entirely volunteers...
> >
> > Fair enough. I was speaking mainly of the General Assembly
> > delegates, though they are a minority of the entirety of UN
> > employees, observers, etc.
>
> Well sorry again Dave, but you are still mistaken. Most of the UN
> General Assembly delegates are english speakers and all while in
> the general assembly meetings have real time translation capability
> both ways...
That was part of my point. To recap, it is basically threefold, and I
think we're almost fully in agreement:
1) Unlike the UN delegates, we (IETF, ICANN, etc.) aren't in a
profession where one could reasonably expect us to generally be so
proficient in so many foreign languages, that we could be expected to
read a given language, even a fairly widespread one like Spanish.
Agreed, and that was my original point when I ask for one this thread,
for Erick to also include an english version as the GNSO forum
is mostly english speakers only.
(All
the more so since so many of us are Americans. As the old joke goes,
someone who knows two languages is bilingual, someone who knows three
languages is trilingual, and someone who knows only one language is
American.)
Well or maybe a ubangi! >;) However your point here is also well
taken and in addition supports my original point that again, Erick's
post in Spanish, should have included a English translation. It didn't!
When I pointed that out I was personally and professionally attacked.
As it happens, I know enough French, and smatterings of
Spanish and Latin, that I could probably understand most of the gist of
something written in Spanish, or maybe even Portugese or Italian, but
that's just me. An American who chose to learn, say, Russian or
Japanese, when I opted for French, might be totally lost in Spanish.
Of course...
2) The exception to #1 is a very basic proficiency in English (even if
with a heavy accent, limited vocabulary, and bad grammar and spelling),
since it is the lingua franca of today's world, especially in computers
and business. All the more so for someone whose native tongue is
something closely related like any Romance or Germanic language, as
opposed to an Asian or African language. It makes far more sense to
post to lists such as these in broken English, than perfect Spanish.
Agreed. Or is posting in Spanish or any other language, be considerate
enough of the majority of the ML forums participants to provide a
translation
in the language which the majority of participant are most fluent in..
And so again, Erick did not do that.
3) We don't have anywhere near the money to do all the translating the
UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like they do.
We? Is there a mouse in your pocket? ICANN certainly has the
funding or can acquire it. So can or does the IETF...
> > Even regarding the others, the UN's entire point is international
> > cooperation for basically its own sake (even if specific agencies
> > have more specific missions). It seems obvious to me that they
> > will be more often people who have an interest in foreign
> > languages, than will most other groups, even those that operate
> > internationally.
>
> You MAY have a good point here I will grant you. But it is a
> speculative point at least...
Agreed....
> However as the UN is and has been
> less than well respected on an international basis for various
> reasons based on repeated errors in judgment and subsequent action
> they as a international body, hardly are representative in any
> superior way to many other international bodies that are not UN
> related...
I purposely avoided making any comments on the effectiveness,
efficiency, etc. of the UN, as those really aren't germane to the
points we were both making. However, I happen to mostly agree....
--
Dave Aronson, Senior Software Engineer, Secure Software Inc.
Email me at: work (D0T) 2004 (@T) dja (D0T) mailme (D0T) org
(Opinions above NOT those of securesw.com unless so stated!)
WE'RE HIRING developers, auditors, and VP of Prof. Services.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"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.
E-Mail jwkckid1(_at_)ix(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827