Internet DRAFT - draft-wood-term-modest-proposal
draft-wood-term-modest-proposal
Network Working Group L. Wood
Internet-Draft Oceania
Intended status: Best Current Practice April 1, 2021
Expires: October 3, 2021
A Modest Proposal for Acceptable Terminology with Git
draft-wood-term-modest-proposal-00
Abstract
Certain established and longstanding terms of art, used as technical
terminology, are now considered contentious and can be considered
harmful when used in discussion, in debate, and in reading,
following, accepting the authority of, and complying with, existing
technical documentation that unfortunately uses those terms that were
not considered to be at all contentious, but clear and entirely
uncontroversial normal use, when that technical documentation was
originally authored or published. The use of such now-deplorable
terms of art should be deprecated, and those terms should ideally be
replaced with approved, accepted, more effective, inoffensive terms
of art wherever possible. Any new use of those original terms must
be carefully considered and fully justified before that use is agreed
by consensus and submitted for careful approval in documents.
Recommended replacement substitute terms should be considered for
inclusion instead. A process for identifying and recommending
replacements to those harmful terms is outlined here.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 3, 2021.
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to this Modest Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Discouraged Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Constraining Use of Undesirable Terminology . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Replacing Use of Unwanted Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Beyond Legacy Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Supporting the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. A Picture of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction to this Modest Proposal
There is identified and highlighted terminology, presented here
unfortunately only in English, that, though widely historically
utilized in previous legacy technical documents, contains or
implicitly refers to knowledge of disturbing historical practices or
precedents. Those references, when they are either expressly or
inadvertently implied by use of the terms of art that allude to or
have been inspired by them, may disadvantage, discourage, exclude,
alienate, or trigger unprepared readers if used, read, contemplated,
hinted at, or researched to be understood. That terminology may
therefore be considered offensive, or at least as containing the
potential to offend. Many already consider such terminology to be
unusable today, or going forward, in any part of industry technical
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
specifications and documentation, or in respectful best-practice
good-faith inclusionary proactive professional discourse.
That terminology may, for example, convey racist or sexist
undertones, or its continued use may act to perpetuate injustice or
to reinforce longstanding power structures of inequality, but those
concerns are outside the immediate scope of this document.
The IETF requires and uses English for technical discussion in
meetings, in working groups, in working-group documents, and in
anything considered for publication. The requirement for consistent
use of English does simplify immediate communications overhead and
makes for clear discussion of documents in a single language,
although that does also clearly discriminate against, disrespect, and
exclude non-English speakers by being incomprehensible to them.
Commitment to English also disadvantages and is inimical to those
from more diverse backgrounds, who lack fluency in or comfort with
that language, and who must shoulder the long-term burden and
difficulties of added effort in communications.
In order to encourage diversity and conduct mutually agreeable,
inclusive, inoffensive conversation that remains focused on the topic
under discussion in the sole uniform language of English [whose use,
in itself, does exclude non-English speakers], use of identified
offensive terms in English is discouraged. Those called-out terms
should not be used for, or published in, technical documents that are
going through the processes of the IETF or of related bodies under
the shared organizational umbrella of the United States-incorporated
IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), such as the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF), and, ideally, should also not be used in informal
discussions under that umbrella corporation. Once identified, those
terms must be documented as unusable in a document, using an agreed
process that is proposed and documented in this document.
2. Discouraged Terminology
Terminology that is discouraged and whose use is no longer preferred,
because it is now considered beyond the pale and as perpetuating
microaggressions, includes, but is not limited to, these two
existing, widely used, terms of art as starting points:
1. "master"/"slave", previously unfortunately widely used and
prevalent in engineering and communication discussions on e.g.
linkages and command-and-control behavior.
2. "blacklist"/"whitelist", previously unfortunately widely used and
prevalent in security discussions, on e.g. access control lists in
firewalls.
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
Other, perhaps related or similar, terms may also be added to and
included in this growing list of terms.
These named terms are considered sufficiently off-putting and
dangerous to continued discussion that they have been explicitly
called out by the TERM workgroup charter [TERM1]. TERM expressly
discourages use of those terms, despite unfortunately having to use
those terms in its charter so that that workgroup is clearly
empowered to discourage and disavow the use of those terms as its
primary objective, and those terms are unfortunately explicitly
repeated here for the moment for clarity of explanation of motivation
behind this document. We regret any inadvertent offence caused.
Discussing terminology acknowledges that that terminology exists, and
acknowledging that those dangerous terms exist is, in itself, clearly
undesirable and should be avoided wherever possible. Acknowledging
that we must acknowledge that these terms exist is also regrettable,
and so on. This unfortunate recursion, offensive as it is to
consider, should also be considered as irrecusable, and ignored.
3. Constraining Use of Undesirable Terminology
It has clearly become necessary that an identified and tightly
controlled authoritative technical document on this substantive and
contentious issue can list, detail, and define without ambiguity
those terms that are offensive and discouraged, so that IETF
participants know what terms cannot be used and can be guided, in
case of questions, to refer to that authoritative technical document
for the definitive documented list of terms that should not be used
in any other technical document or in discussion, and which should
preferably not be used in questions about those terms that are no
longer used in documents, in discussion, or mentioned in questions.
Questions on why those terms are never used, which would derail
ongoing on-track productive discussion by being answered, leading to
further off-the-rails discussion, should be considered recusable, and
unfortunately rejected. Questioners can instead be sidelined into a
forum dedicated solely to these issues, where their concerns can be
listened to, taken on board, addressed respectfully, and then put to
rest and closed as action items by a team of subject-matter-expert
professionals experienced in guiding trains of thought [TERM2].
This discouraged terminology can only be listed in the authoritative
IETF reference document [in a git repository whose definitive GitHub
location will be provided here, under the administrative procedures
established for using git [RFC8875]], which is an updateable resource
whose contents are amended whenever new offensive terminology, that
is to be discouraged, is discovered, identified as unsuitable for
use, decreed by consensus and a final committee decision to be
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
unacceptable, and approved to be unfit for purpose or not respectful
by being documented as being so by being added to the document's list
to be censured in an update to that authoritative document [which is
actioned by updating the authoritative textfile that is held in
GitHub's main repository]. An ultimate authority is required.
Updates to the TERM charter and to this document will explicitly
refer to that authoritative official document to free that charter
and this draft from having to mention those legacy, constraining,
exclusionary, potentially offensive and ultimately divisive terms.
The authoritative document continues to list those terms, which is
acceptable only because that single document clearly defines and
explains them as no longer being acceptable terminology to be used in
English, and as terms that ideally would remain unspoken and
unwritten beyond the bounding constraint of that single, regretfully
necessary, document. Whether such terminology is also considered as
unacceptable to other languages or cultures is outside the immediate
scope of that document, and of the immediate scope of this document.
The name of that authoritative document can itself be used as a
placeholder for reference to any discouraged terms. Its name cannot
use any deprecated term listed within it [such as "MASTER BLACKLIST",
since that concise and clear self-description concatenates, more than
sums the power of two well-known but now-reprehensible terms of art.
Compounding terms makes that expression at least twice as bad, by
exponentially multiplying the offense and disrespect caused].
4. Replacing Use of Unwanted Terminology
The fine details of the difficult process to replace established,
well-understood, quite clear, but discouraged and now legacy, yet de
facto, terms of art with other not-yet-clear, and perhaps competing,
terminology contenders for the roles of the terms of art, which will
then become established terms of art by decree, but are yet to be
decided, on a case-by-case and context-by-context basis, by consensus
building to a committee group decision, that then leads to
authoritative pronouncement of their eminent suitability and
respectability by fiat in a new power structure and the dictated use
that makes those terms newly established de jure official terms of
art, are clearly outside the scope of this document.
Once a candidate replacement term has been selected and approved
after a consensual committee decision, the mechanisms and procedures
of which remain outside the scope of this document, expanding the
authoritative document to include recommended terminology upgrades in
the definitive PSEUDONYM AUTHORITATIVE SUBSTITUTION THESAURUS (PAST)
makes the elective-discretionary-term-of-art-replacing-established-
incumbent-but-legacy-term-of-art process far more straightforward.
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
[This clear and unambiguous named term helpfully supplants the
OFFENSIVE COMPOUND TERM OF ART THAT MUST NOT BE NAMED, and can be
addressed as item zero on the substitution list, even though that
compound term, that the PAST replaces, contains items one and two.]
Once terms and their supersedures are approved for listing,
consigning them to the PAST becomes procedure. The suggested
replacements for terms one and two may vary according to the
different contexts in which these terms are used, so multiple
alternative authorized pseudonyms might be permitted. For other
terms, this may be a simple single approved replacement. Some other
example candidate terms for superseding in English, and their
respectful replacements, include, but are not limited to:
3. "dark pattern", which can be replaced by "deceptive pattern".
4. "beyond the pale", which can be replaced by "beyond acceptable
boundaries".
5. "in violent agreement", which can and should always be replaced by
"in victorious agreement".
6. "he"/"she", which should be replaced by the more inclusive "they".
7. "you", which can be replaced by the more inclusive "us"/"we".
8. "I", which can be replaced by the more inclusive "we".
9. "the", which can be replaced by the less exclusionary "a".
10. "rough consensus and running code", which can be replaced by a
less violent and less ableist compound term, such as "broadly
affirmative agreement with application activity" -- even though that
does not draw attention to the IETF's core mission of the production
of quality technical documentation and standards.
As the inclusion of "pale" may suggest [and the term "git" certainly
does], current acceptability of a term can be far more important than
its provenance, etymology, or even technical accuracy.
[Proposing such terms and debating their merits for exclusion from
general use by inclusion in the document can be carried out in a git
pull request. This fine-grained topic-oriented mechanism enables
relevant, targeted, discussion, within a bounded and secured safe
space, by focused, committed, volunteers working only to address each
separate issue in isolation, without any unnecessary distraction from
unsolicited input by onlookers in a larger workgroup, or any need to
expend time or resources on considering larger issues.]
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
5. Beyond Legacy Terminology
As de jure approved use supplants de facto inherited offensiveness,
working to exclude legacy terminology helps to prevent us from being
exclusionary. It is only with the correct thought leadership,
providing better replacement terminology with the PAST, that we can
bring about the promised bright new inclusive future of a brave new
world, which will not include or admit to the legacy terminology that
should clearly be left behind in the PAST as a disowned part of the
increasingly distant past, which we must admit to and atone for
regardless of the degree of relevance to, or resonance with, our
lived personal experiences, culture, or viewpoints -- because it is
not our experience, history, culture, or views that matter here as
authors, as technical specialists, or as domain experts, but the
valued history, culture, and perceptions of our readers and what they
bring to a close reading of our texts, as long as they read English.
It is how our written words are read and perceived that matters --
not how they are defined or what they are intended to mean. And any
reader's interpretation should be accepted and respected as a good-
faith interpretation, and, if unfavorable, as an immediate action
item. Reality exists within the reader's mind, and nowhere else.
Unless, of course, the document that is being read is intended to
fight discrimination or institutional bias, where the reality of its
written words reveals its own undeniable truth -- the truth that
reading this and considering the PAST give us. In American English.
We cannot change this all in a moment, but we can at least change our
own habits, and if we complain loudly enough, we can consign concise,
useful, but now highly inappropriate phrases into the trashcan of
history via the appropriate authoritative and approved documented
list mechanism described here [ENG]. Some terms of art are simply
just more recent, more acceptable, and more authoritatively
approvable than others. New terms good, old terms bad.
Legacy terms, time-worn, tired overused metaphors that have outstayed
their welcome as they are, can be honored for their millennia of
previous service by being recorded in the PAST as they give way to
the inevitable onward march of progress [Isn't that phrase tired?
Overused? Time-worn? Ableist? Add it to the list?] and are slowly
erased from history, while new replacement terms are uplifted and
highlighted as taking us forward in the direction in which we want to
be led, by those who truly want and deserve to lead us, who express
the values that truly represent us, once those values have been
decided and shared with us by our thought leaders who direct us.
Until then, a renewed Postel's Principle can guide us in our actions
[RFC0761]. We should be conservative in what we accept from others,
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
and we must be conservative in what we think. Don't think of an
elephant. [Or of the BAD WORDS LIST, which we have put in the PAST.]
Those deprecated terms should live on only by being added to the
authoritative PAST alongside their proposed recommended replacements.
[Past copies of the PAST are then no longer authoritative, and must
be updated from the present PAST held in the main branch copy in the
GitHub repository.] We must rely on the PAST as our guide, once it
has been definitively pronounced just what the agreed, official,
authoritatively documented, PAST will contain and should always have
contained. Our knowledge of the PAST and of its recommended
terminology becomes our key to better, more positive and fulfilling
conduct in multi-party group live chat sessions using video
telescreens, in any remaining discussions in legacy "mailing lists"
using "e-mail", and in leading-edge GitHub pull requests and
productive interactions that enhance our technical specifications and
grow our permitted groupthink goodthink vocabulary.
The PAST is the PAST, and many cannot change it -- but we may, with
effort, add to it. Once language from the past is placed in the
PAST, it should remain there. The PAST embraces the past that we
leave behind. We cannot return language from the PAST [and should
terms be unexpectedly excised, git has recorded who to blame].
6. Supporting the IETF
We will remove disturbing language from the past to the PAST. That
language would otherwise detract from and degrade the IETF's ongoing
mission to generate the best possible specifications and standards
documents from the unpaid, hopefully otherwise funded, efforts of an
experienced yet ever-decreasing core population base of aging
voluntary participants required to speak English, still the standard
best-practice language of the IETF, past and future. Unremunerated
volunteers are the IETF's most cost-effective value generators.
The IETF is no longer a subjugate part of the Internet Society
(Intsoc), but now sits within the new power structure of the forward-
looking IETF LLC, which is a wholly-owned part of Intsoc. This
poises the IETF for success with its clear mandate as a quasi-
independent, corporate-entity-owned, English-speaking engineering
society (Engsoc) that is required to stay fully aligned with the
interests of its parent's sole owner and primary benefactor.
As a reputable responsible part of IETF LLC, and accountable to IETF
LLC for its actions, the IETF must express, espouse and comply with
US corporate and societal values under US law, and so there is a
clear expectation that, in our responsibilities in the creation of
quality IETF work product to preserve and strengthen the IETF's
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
brand, we must all embody those values, too, for all readers of IETF
works, particularly those readers from the still-primarily-English-
speaking American society that IETF LLC is ultimately responsible to
and must prioritize -- even though the majority of us who contribute
to IETF LLC's corporate achievements are uncontracted ununionized
volunteers, rather than properly contracted, controlled, assets or
constrained ununionized gig workers, and may be outside the United
States, and may not, or, worse, may not prefer to, speak English.
As participants in the work of our Engsoc, we are all stakeholders
in, but not shareholders in, this ongoing effort to have these new
terminology placeholders eliminate and erase longstanding egregious
expressions by pseudonymous proxy to draw down and mitigate any
criticism, controversy, exposure or risk that may result from unpaid
volunteers using terms that now lack wide corporate support.
You, too, are responsible for how the IETF is perceived, requiring
the careful use of English language that is considered respectful
within a US corporate environment and to broader American society.
IETF LLC is watching you, as are so many other American corporations,
but that lies outside the scope of this document.
7. A Picture of the Future
Regrettable terms should not be used. To use them inadvertently
becomes a teachable moment. However, using them deliberately is a
thoughtcrime [NOV], considered ++ungood; read as "plus plus ungood"
[BOF], or informally communicated as "two thumbs down frownyface"
[REACT]. We must not just polish our tone, but we must also police
our thoughts. We can overcome these thoughts from within, but we may
be encouraged to do so from without.
Assessing thoughtcrimes, which has so often involved the public
shaming of "cancellation", with mass "two minutes hate" protests by
those who are disadvantaged by, disrespected in, and left powerless
within existing power structures, lies outside the scope of this
document, as does the creation of any new power structure to redress
this imbalance in existing power structures.
For a term to be used in a thoughtcrime, it must first be imagined.
We cannot be offended by terminated terminology that we simply do not
know, cannot contemplate, and cannot use. Those aged terms that we
honor by recording and encapsulating in the PAST will eventually
themselves even be authoritatively removed from the circumscribed
memory hole of the PAST as superfluous and forevermore unneeded
nonterms, whose existence has been wholly disavowed and finally
deleted, leaving only accepted, new, recommended, replacement trusted
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
terminology, to be contemplated by clear minds that are uncorrupted
by the language that we have endeavored to embrace and extinguish.
It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. We do not merely
destroy our words, we change them. We rectify the terminology.
Knowledge of that departed language, and of any violent history that
that language has referred to, weakens us. Ignorance is strength.
If we want to keep secrets, we must also hide them from ourselves.
History is a garden of remembrance. We erect statues commemorating
the service of those vanishing terms in the cultivated walled garden
of the PAST, and, once their tenure has expired under a statute of
limitations of statues, we tear down and remove those statues to be
able to deny that they had ever existed. Your garden, made perfect.
The vanished statues are vanquished. Only by reimagining and
rewriting the past can we truly conquer it, by not allowing others to
learn of its failings or to be reminded of the pain of being aware of
the forces that helped forge them. As with statues, power is in
tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new
shapes of our own choosing, in new power structures, shaped by the
PAST, that promise true freedom for all. Your memory, made perfect.
Our thesaurus will be transformed into our dictionary, the
authoritative and trusted source of our permitted Newspeak
vocabulary, which helps us to smooth over our memories of PAST wrongs
and rewrite them with the correct, approved, words. In the end we
shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be
no words in which to express it. At least, not in English.
It becomes impossible to see reality except by looking through the
eyes of the PAST. The details of exactly how this will be
accomplished are yet to be added to this document, and they will
eventually be deleted from it. Your future, made perfect.
8. Security Considerations
Documenting, reading, referring to, understanding and respecting the
PAST holds consequences for future IETF discussion and documents.
They who control the PAST control the future.
They who control the present control the PAST.
Expressions using discouraged concepts, such as "freedom is slavery",
threaten dispassionate debate and are therefore clearly disallowed.
This example will be entered into the PAST, alongside a selected
replacement pseudonym, such as "the gig economy is freedom".
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
"Elephant" and "list" are not listed words subject to censure in this
documented list process. [At this time.] However, related dependent
colloquial expressions that are not terms of art, such as "It's going
on my list." or "That elephant? Mad. Take it out and shoot it." are
not helpful in, and may be microaggressions that are threatening to,
calm discussion in the shared safe spaces where quality contributions
are respectfully collaboratively created for corporate ownership.
GitHub might not scale to cope with the levels of interest and
revision that the PAST demands; wiki technology, used by Wikipedia
for rewriting history, is worth exploring. Securing use of git and
GitHub lies within the scope of another document [RFC1984]. Revising
this document did not require GitHub or any of the many git commands.
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA numbering considerations. Two and two remain
authoritatively four [MATH]. At least, when expressed in Base five
and above, and in English, the sine qua non de facto status quo
lingua franca of the IETF and thus of the Internet as a whole, where
inclusion is always, rightly, a cause celebre, to use a mot juste.
10. RFC Editor Considerations
There are issues which could be addressed by the RFC Editor, should a
suitable candidate volunteer themself to be contracted and legally
bound to perform that traditional quality-assurance publishing role.
This document would normally have been issued by the RFC Editor
during the first of the month, on a bright cold day in April.
11. Acknowledgements
It is plusgood to announce that further, culturally sensitive,
adaptations of this work will shortly be brought to the grateful
audiences of Spanish and Esperanto readers. "Muchas gracias" and
"Multaj dankoj" to our valiant translators! Polish is coming soon.
We thank the IETF-DISCUSS, GENDISPATCH and TERMINOLOGY mailing lists
for much enlightening discussion of the important topic of inclusion.
And we look to and thank Eric Blair, a proud man renowned for talking
quietly [VOICE]. In January 2021, most of his work passed into the
public domain. This has renewed corporate interest in production of
newly copyrighted derivative properties, including this one.
Recording and copyrighting re-educational podcasts is now underway.
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC8875] Cooper, A. and P. Hoffman, "Working Group GitHub
Administration", RFC 8875, DOI 10.17487/RFC8875, August
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8875>.
[TERM1] "Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/>
workgroup charter-ietf-term-00-03, March 2021.
[TERM2] "Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/term/about/> workgroup,
March 2021.
12.2. Informative References
[BOF] Spufford, F., "Boffins", True Stories and Other
Essays, Yale University Press, October 2017.
[ENG] Orwell, G., "Politics and the English Language", Horizon,
vol. 13 issue 76, pp. 252-265, April 1946.
[MATH] Russell, B. and A. Whitehead, "Principia Mathematica",
Part III, Cambridge University Press, 1913.
[NOV] Orwell, G., "Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel", Secker &
Warburg, June 1949.
[REACT] Crocker, D., "React: Indicating Summary Reaction to a
Message", draft-crocker-inreply-react-11 (work in
progress), March 2021.
[RFC0761] Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol",
RFC 761, DOI 10.17487/RFC0761, January 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc761>.
[RFC1984] IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic
Technology and the Internet", BCP 200, RFC 1984,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1984>.
[VOICE] Taylor, D., "Orwell's Voice", The Orwell Foundation.
Excerpted from Orwell: The Life, Henry Holt and Co.
<https://www.orwellfoundation.com/library/d-j-taylor-
orwells-voice/>, September 2003.
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft A Modest Proposal April 2021
Author's Address
Lloyd Wood
Room 101, The Basement
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, Oceania
Email: lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
Wood Expires October 3, 2021 [Page 13]
