<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Perhaps this portion of the thread might now be taken off list? or
be renamed nuances of language use in common and civil law
jurisdictions...<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/16/2014 7:17 PM, Shatan, Gregory
S. wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C5F93C@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I don’t know Goodwin’s Law. If you
are referring to Godwin’s Law, we have not reached that
point in discourse, yet, so I don’t think it applies.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I’m not sure how the claim that I
have “lost the argument” follows from your prior statements,
or is true in any fashion. In my reading on “fallacies of
argument,” I don’t believe I came upon “unilateral
declarations of victory” as one of the commonly cited
fallacies. But it probably should be.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Since you as a Frenchman follow the
French “official definition” and I as an American, find my
(different) usage supported in the American Heritage
Dictionary among other places, I think that underlines my
prior point, which is that there are variant meanings, and
if one wants to say “personal attack,” it may be better to
just say it, since “ad hominem” will be understood by some
and not others to be synonymous with “ad hominem.” While it
would be amusing to further explore “ad hominem,” it would
not be germane to this list. I’d rather try to define
“multistakeholder….”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Greg Shatan</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span> JFC
Morfin [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Michel Gauthier'; Jay
Daley; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a> List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [IANAtransition] Troll</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Gregory,<br>
<br>
You are obviously an honest person. Kudos.<br>
<br>
<br>
Even if you did not take Latin at school, <br>
1. you know about Goodwin's law. You have, therefore, lost the
argument, if there was one :-) !<br>
2. you can accept that there are two different things to name:
to discuss other people's texts or person.
<br>
<br>
The difficulty with English is the "common law" syndrome,
where the commonly used meaning precedes the "contracted" (in
dictionary/etymology) meaning. This is a big problem for the
naming space that we are discussing here as non english-native
may think it makes it unstable, and inadequate for computers
direct entry. This is the main reason for the distrust in some
Anglo-Saxon global taxonomies (where they easily confuse the
name that one should put on the record and the object one can
sell). This is perhaps why ISO uses English and French texts.
Each language has their own complementary pros and cons: let
say that English is advantageous for politically changing
standards and French for norms.
<br>
<br>
I am sorry, but I am French and I follow the French official
definition (very short) that you can find at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/ad%20hominem">http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/ad%20hominem</a>.
This is Schopenhauer's definition, which is well known in
"mail-combat".<br>
<br>
It is worse than Goodwin's Law, which only refers to texts. Ad
hominem is often the path to ad personam, which among honest,
intelligent, informed, independent people demonstrates an
inability to oppose the person's arguments, either by personal
incapacity or by logical impossibility. <br>
<br>
<br>
Now, my strategy is simple, it is to evidence the boringly
hidden evidences that harm people’s interests and, therefore,
my, and my people’s and friend’s, interests.<br>
<br>
In 1977, I was interested in Associations and SoHo operational
networking and I wanted to build my own civil and professional
international networking capability, optimizing to my
advantage what was credibly proposed in the digital field.
<br>
<br>
There were three credible network technology applied
"cultures"; <br>
- one was private by Norm Hardy. It was user centric (Tymnet),
<br>
- one was French Gov. research. As such it was open network
centric by Louis Pouzin,
<br>
- one was French PTT projected plans. That Rémi Desprès has
technically led.<br>
<br>
The difference was in the globalism, equality, and neutrality
priority order. <br>
<br>
The CCITT (ITU) project favored equality among the users. It
was to start from the global monopolistic bandwidth and add a
data capacity on an equal footing for everyone. This is what
the French Gov. favored with Transpac and Minitel.<br>
<br>
Vint Cerf's project (EIN 48) favored the extension of local to
global in a first time, to experiment first a global coverage
for the USG ARPA, and then to extend it to other technologies.
<br>
<br>
I chose to follow the first one. Tymnet provided me (and
everyone, which is why we made 100% of the international
packet switch services start using it) with a neutral and open
capacity that soon proved to be consensually accepted as
global and reasonably equal (within the structural limits of
the US law; no problem in France once Transpac started). I
created further the Tymnet Extended Services department,
including our "Eurolab" with the “VGN for all” project and
even a both-ways international Minitel gateway, with US and
Canadian Minitel accesses.<br>
<br>
Obviously, politics interfered: the French Gov closed Louis
Pouzin's project at the end of 1978 that we had planned to
interconnect, but we connected ARPA to support Jean Ichbiah
ADA work at CII-HB (which produced the machines for the two
French projects).
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ichbiah">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ichbiah</a>.
We were all in the Paris west-area.<br>
<br>
Legally, there was the need to compose with communications
monopolies.<br>
<br>
1. the FCC had to introduce neutrality vs. non-neutrality
(basic vs. value-added [now enhanced] services) to permit
Telenet and Tymnet to legally operate outside of the ATT Bell
System monopoly. In addition, the FCC gave Tymnet a license to
document the US naming, as Telenet only used digital addresses
(IP and key CCITT X.25 contributors with the French teams).
<br>
<br>
2. we deployed network traffic and technology neutrality
worldwide with PTTs, where there was no legal problem. This
made us hold mixed public operators/private network projects
(at that time, I attended Group III meetings in Geneva in the
State Department delegation!).<br>
<br>
However, international and technological network neutrality
(we had a large catalog of [cross-technology interfaces])
turned out to be to the US mainstream industry disadvantage in
permitting French, Canadian, German, and US start-ups to
compete with them. McDonnell Douglas counter-strategically
acquired Tymnet and strangled its technological neutrality,
while PTTs in several countries made neutrality legal: the OSI
platform was the law and it was to be contractually guaranteed
by operators.<br>
<br>
<br>
Architecturally things have not changed very much but they
have matured. The Internet developed based on Louis Pouzin's
datagram and network of networks catenet concepts, but it is
still at its first experimental stage. It has, therefore, not
reached the transparent neutrality capability. It is still
unable to interconnect non-I*technologies, hence all the Web,
Apps, etc. patches that have been made a "feature" by the RFC
6852 economic standardization paradigm. It is still unable to
support privacy, prevent spam, insure security, etc. There is
only one thing it does well: support non-neutrality. <br>
<br>
The architectural reason why is that there is a lack of a
border between the network and the user areas: the concept of
a smart multi-technology and robust barbican (OSI presentation
layer six) has not been implemented yet (people are only
allowed to build firewalls, anti-viruses, spam-filters, use
ISP nameservers, daily lose their IP address). This has
permitted the fostering of a non-neutral intrusive (they call
it inclusive) technical practice, decentralized among main
edge providers, i.e. true stakeholders (NSA, Google, Apple,
Microsoft, Facebook, etc.) which populate and sponsor ISOC,
Unicode, OpenStand, IEEE, W3C, etc.<br>
<br>
However, IDAN2008 and RFC 5895 have shown that the EIN 48
project has nominally progressed. This is probably why the
internet project fared so well: it is simple and consistent,
even if it suffers from the Loc/ID BUG (in order to Be
Unilaterally Global): IETF has developed all of what is end to
end (barbican to barbican) necessary in order to build the
Internet informed intelligent interfaced user (IUser)’s
Barbican at the fringe (*) and to relate from Barbican to
Barbican, as it was integrated in CCITT OSI and the core of
the use oriented Tymnet neutrality.<br>
<br>
(*) Brian Carpenter will explain to you what it means. There
is a divergence on the edge/barbican location. Vint Cerf
wanted it on the network side, and I got it on the user-side.
This is what is referred to as the “presentation layer on the
user side” (PLUS).<br>
<br>
This fully addresses my 1977 expectations, and what the WSIS
unanimously demanded in calling for a "Human Righted" people
centered information society. This is what the WCIT majority
called for in Dubai. This permits the protection of our
humanity from the "open gates" business greed of the US edge
operators. This permits our personal democratic choices, and
protects fair competition from MS collusion and economic
invasion.<br>
<br>
<br>
My only targets are: <br>
<br>
1. to devise, develop, experiment, and deploy my digital
relational space (VGN) from my "smart barbican" (or IUI:
intelligent use interfaces) and organize with others the
protected, free, and innovative digital fringe to fringe
relational ties (this is the InterPLUS).<br>
<br>
2. to test if the olicannopole wants to cooperate and dialog
on an equal footing basis or not. I have nothing against them
(and do not need them: they only use a very tiny portion of
our technologically available common spectrum): we only need
to know if we can cooperate or coexist in peace, or if they
have decided that they cannot survive us. In that case, we
will only ignore them, as long as they do not claim to
represent and fight us. Anyway, time and self-ordered
criticality play for us.<br>
<br>
They should also remember who is paying them.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="_GoBack"></a>Obviously,
banning on the ground that I am a dissenting Stakeholder or
because I am not a Stakeholder who no right to free speech
because I speak the truth about the technology and users would
make an interesting last minute contribution to Sao Paulo.<br>
<br>
jfc<br>
<br>
PS. I suppose that if they ban me, they will quote this mail
as having been sent after collective warning and will attach
it to the decision. It will make at interesting reading for
those wanting to understand how well ICANN has prepared this
debate framework (and therefore its ability to frame far more
complex IG cases than mine). <br>
<br>
<br>
At 05:16 16/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br>
<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I was going to say that you were the
confused one, but instead, I did some research. My conclusion
is that the usage itself is hopelessly confused. (In other
words, neither of us are confused per se.)
<br>
<br>
A quick survey reveals that the use and meaning of the terms
ad personam and ad hominem seem to be so thoroughly confused
and jumbled, both in academic use and popular discourse, by so
many people, that it is probably better to stay away from them
entirely, and just say what one means without resort to Latin.
<br>
<br>
Indeed, it appears that there are so many whole essays and
scholarly articles -- even books -- written on the various
meanings of ad hominem, that it would be worthless for us to
discuss it. I expect that if you brought a Classicist, a
logician, a philosopher and a student of rhetoric (Classic?
"New"?) together to discuss the meaning of ad hominem (and ad
personam), they would probably come to blows. And I'm sure
that each one would say he (or she) was right and the others
were wrong. An argument among scholars of argument about
differing theories of argument would be rather amusing....<br>
<br>
Contrast the following:<br>
<br>
A. From Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy--
published by Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981.<br>
<br>
3. Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man)
. The Latin means "argument to the man." (a) Arguing against,
or rejecting a person's views by attacking or abusing his
personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications,
etc. as opposed to providing evidence why the views are
incorrect. Example: "What John said should not be believed
because he was a Nazi sympathizer."
<br>
...<br>
6. Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (appeal to personal
interest). Arguing by appealing to the personal likes
(preferences, prejudices, predispositions, etc.) of others in
order to have an argument accepted.<br>
<br>
B. Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy, XXXVIII:<br>
<br>
A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon
as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and
that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing
from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the
disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It
may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it
from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the
objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the
statements or admissions which your opponent has made in
regard to it.<br>
<br>
C. Listverse, 30 Latin Terms Explained:<br>
<br>
Ad Hominem: An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an
argument or factual claim by attacking a characteristic or
belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than
by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer
specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad
personam, which consists of criticizing or personally
attacking an argument$B!G(Bs proponent in an attempt to
discredit that argument.<br>
<br>
D. The American HeritageR Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition copyright c2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All
rights reserved.<br>
<br>
ad hom$B!l(Bi$B!&(Bnem$B!l(B adv.<br>
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad
suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to
whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase
denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's
emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence "The
Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling
to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for
reducing inheritance taxes." This usage appears to be waning;
only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence
acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based
on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of
the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a
tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is
weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence
acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in
referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of
an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the
nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad
hominem way." This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the
Panel. $B!&(B Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use
as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding
all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can
work together" (Washington Post). This usage may raise some
eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in
journalistic style. $B!&(B A modern coinage patterned on
ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of Nabokov and
its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on
character assassination" (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would
argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin
word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the
male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific
meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on
women as women or because they are women, as in "Their
recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly
climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley).<br>
<br>
E. Argumentation Theory after the New Rhetoric, Frans H. van
Eemeren (in l$B!G(Banalisi linguistica e letteraria xvii
(2009) 1)<br>
<br>
In their definition of argumentum ad hominem, Perelman and
Olbrechts-Tyteca refer to Schopenhauer. Unlike Schopenhauer,
they see nothing reprehensible in this form of argumentation.
They even argue that without ad hominem argumentation it would
be impossible to win others over to a particular standpoint.
In their view, ad hominem does not denote a specific (and
incorrect) argumentation technique, but a general
characteristic of all successful argumentation. According to
the new rhetoric, arguing ad hominem means starting from the
audience$B!G(Bs opinions concerning facts and values.
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca place ad hominem on the same
level as arguing ex concessis. Arguing ad hominem amounts to
utilizing what the audience is prepared to concede
(concedere).<br>
<br>
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca also discuss the argumentation
technique of personally attacking the opposition. in order to
avoid confusion, they do not call this technique argumentum ad
hominem but argumentum ad personam. They do not reject a
personal attack on the opposition. They do warn, however, that
in certain cases it is not so expedient because it may have
the reverse effect. Scientific audiences in particular, have
a low esteem of personal attacks. Then the attack on the
opposition backfires and the speaker$B!G(Bs (or writer$B!G(Bs)
own standing, prestige and credibility are reduced.<br>
<br>
F. Jefsey<br>
<br>
"This is all the easier in English in that the confusion
between the two phrases [ad hominem and ad personam] already
belongs to the common language."
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current/msg00610.html%A0">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/current/msg00610.html
</a>(Part of a very long thread devoted to
use/misuse/differing use of "ad hominem")<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Michel Gauthier [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com"> mailto:mg@telepresse.com</a>]
<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:03 PM<br>
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Jefsey'; Jay Daley; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">
ianatransition@icann.org</a>; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a> List<br>
Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Troll<br>
<br>
Greg,<br>
<br>
I am afraid you confuse ad hominem and ad personam. I think
one should be carefull at not cofnusing terms, because this
would to exactly do what Jefsey wants: to show the NTIA, the
world and FLOSS that the ICANN MS community can only ban
competition and is unable to cooperate with VGN Masters. This
would legitimate their claim that they must develop their own
"fail secure plan for the net" in case they are unwelcome.
They would love that you ban a network pioneer:
<br>
he would make the head-lines during Sao Paulo, and ten other
ones would replace him.<br>
<br>
M G<br>
<br>
<br>
At 23:53 15/04/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br>
>"Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a
claim or <br>
>argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact
about the <br>
>author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."<br>
><br>
>I don't see anything ad hominem about Jay Daley's message,
since it <br>
>goes to the nature of the texts, not the writer. On the
other hand, <br>
>accusing someone of being a mouthpiece for another
organization or <br>
>"blundering", strikes me as ad hominem.<br>
><br>
>Greg Shatan<br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org">ianatransition-bounces@icann.org</a>
<br>
>[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:ianatransition-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Jefsey<br>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:45 PM<br>
>To: Jay Daley; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
List<br>
>Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Troll<br>
><br>
>At last!<br>
><br>
>It took time! To know what would be the ICANN decision!<br>
>So it is delivered through an NZ ad-hominem. Good, now we
know.<br>
><br>
>Sorry, I am quite buzzy right now....<br>
>I will come back on this later on.<br>
><br>
>jfc<br>
><br>
>PS. If this was not an ICANN decision but an individual
blunder, ICANN <br>
>people can let me know.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>At 22:51 15/04/2014, Jay Daley wrote:<br>
> >Are there others out there who would agree with me
that this list is <br>
> >being overwhelmed by messages from at least one
troll? In particular <br>
> >messages that make ludicrous claims, provide
nonsensical analysis, <br>
> >follow arbitrary directions and altogether are
disruptive to the <br>
> >conversation taking place?<br>
> >In my view this list is too important and already too
time consuming <br>
> >to allow any trolls to disrupt it in this way.<br>
> >If so then what if any process do we have for
removing such a troll?<br>
> >I note that the IETF, which is a long established
multi-stakeholder <br>
> >organisation has also had problems like this and has
occasionally had <br>
> >to ban people. Those bans were then subject to two
levels of appeal:<br>
> ><br>
> ><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html">
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html</a><br>
> ><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.iab.org/appeals/">
https://www.iab.org/appeals/</a><br>
> ><br>
> >cheers<br>
> >Jay<br>
> ><br>
> >PS I have posted the same message to <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>ianatransition mailing list<br>
><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a><br>
><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>
* * *<br>
><br>
>This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and <br>
>may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you <br>
>are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately
by reply <br>
>e-mail and then delete this message from your system.
Please do not <br>
>copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its
contents to any <br>
>other person. Thank you for your cooperation.<br>
><br>
>
* * *<br>
><br>
>To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations,
we inform <br>
>you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S.
Federal tax <br>
>advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is <br>
>not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose <br>
>of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
or applicable <br>
>state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or
recommending <br>
>to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.<br>
> <br>
>Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00<br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>ianatransition mailing list<br>
><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ianatransition@icann.org">ianatransition@icann.org</a><br>
><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition</a></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>