Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 19 April 2021 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0CC23A2E13 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQq4cndnqdJ5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A52D3A2E12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 71530 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2021 11:14:27 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 19 Apr 2021 11:14:27 -0000
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com> <20210415163423.GA10108@miplet.aaaaa.org> <1f2941bd-bc05-45ff-89f3-d852f470e53e@dogfood.fastmail.com> <20210418161626.GH2544@miplet.aaaaa.org>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <50f396d2-9d19-9ffc-b602-b27fbe7572a8@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:37:22 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210418161626.GH2544@miplet.aaaaa.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TLF228Zec3Vi8jeOnLl76csY6zg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:37:31 -0000

Ofer Inbar wrote:

> It was not you specifically, it was the discussion with many
> participants, with several either expressing or assuming the
> idea that "no consensus in the US population" necessarily means
> that TERM should just give up and not look into this at all.

That is not very precise, because you misunderstand which party
has responsibility for proof.

As TERM is trying to restrict very basic human right of freedom
of speech in an international organization of IETF, it can be
authorized only when there is very smooth consensus that some
terminology is definitely not acceptable not only in US but
internationally.

Moreover, it is responsibility of those who are arguing for TERM
to prove that there is such very smooth international consensus.

However, from comments on NYT article, it is obvious that, even
in US, there is no such consensus, not even roughly.

As such, TERM, attempting to restrict freedom of speech
internationally without any valid reasoning, is hopeless.

TERM could be authorized only when there is a valid proof that
there is a very smooth international consensus for it, which
is totally lacking.

						Masataka Ohta