Current strategy
From IUCG - Internet Users Contributing Group
200907078
Contents |
Contributions
I suggest that we stop being overly involved in the WG-IDNABIS and ASIWG.
They now have perfectly identified the point at stake and we must consider how to best contribute to what has become a debate over different opinions. We will only confuse them all in calling on concepts that they have not yet investigated and that are out of their Charter (they need, however, to shape the Internet in the Charter's area so that it can cope with the coming semiotic tide that we have started investigating).
IETF must decide if IDNA stand for Integrated, Internationalized, Internet Domain Names. IMHO, only full scale real life testing can truly help in establishing a better understanding of where we stand. However, testing in turn calls for a test-bed and a clear project and, therefore, clear documentation.
Our main interest
Our basic response to the IDNA level of concerns is online: http://iucg.org/wiki/Interplus. In our ISO like format. We will most probably publish it at least as a glossary along with the interplus document.
Practical difficulties
We are experimenting difficulties with my conversion tool from wiki to xml2rfc. I just decided to redevelop a direct I_D text production tool. This may take a few weeks, though, because I will try to support several formats, and because I will be on vacations.
Main working target
We are currently preparing a working framework for a submission set, in order to document the path "from the Internet, to the Internet Plus, to the multilingual Intersem". This document will probably require a few months to complete as it will be kept in tune with the preparation of the various documents as they are being developed. In which, it will also serve as an executive summary. The submissions should concern the intersem, semantic addressing system, polynym metastructure, intertest to ensure that the real-life testing (technology and governance) does not interfere with daily traffic, a global semiotic approach, the technical formalization of commercial as well as private spheres and built-in micropayment, the much needed glossary, etc. no to speak of the much necessary underlaying research on linguistic, metatechnic, ethitechnic, anthrobotic sociology, governance methodology, facilitation reasoning, etc. So, it will there is a big task ahead. I suspect it will not be a lead user lead topic for a long and that a reticular semantician community may develop.
Intersem experimentation
We plan, according to the IETF standardization rules, to deploy two major running projects along this plan:
- "projet.fra" for a French language open ontology that shall use its own extended namespace (semantic addressing) as its open taxonomy
- "multilinc", for African languages - in this case, we plan to progressively publish a guide on the way to port a language, as well as a culture, on the intersem.
Information
Our main concern is that the existing Internet’s possibilities, which we may activate/unleash, could result in new governance, adminance (technical and administrative governance), and network economy evolution challenges. We, therefore, should be rather careful and liaise with all the concerned international organizations (UNESCO, ITU, WSIS, ISO, ICANN, IAB, EU, MINC, MAAYA, OECD, ASIWG, etc.) in order to keep them well informed.
Intersem preparation meeting
This is why I hereby suggest that we consider an open IUCG "Intersem preparation" concertation meeting to be held in early October in Versailles. As the MLTF used to.
Have great and studious vacations.
