<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:03 PM, JFC Morfin <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="x-msg://1806/">Because the usefulness of IPv6 addresses (like IPv4 addresses) is
constrained by network topology, not politics or whether they feel good,
thus for the Internet to actually scale, you need them to be allocated by
service providers, not politicians?</blockquote>where to you take that
Stakeholders are only made of "politicians"? <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Sorry, where did I say "Stakeholders" are made only of politicians?</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">This is exactly the opposite of my position.</blockquote><br></div><div>To be honest, I'm unclear as to what your position actually is.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Your
<a href="http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad" eudora="autourl">
http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad</a> gives some (not recent)
but clear links about the political dependance of the governance of the
IANA. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To repeat the common refrain, "IANA is a set of functions, currently performed by ICANN under contract to the US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA." As such, it is obvious there is some politics associated with "the IANA". However, you were talking about routing, not about the IANA. My point was that the ITU model of address allocation moves away from the network topologic address allocation model and as such, is less scalable (at least using current routing technology). I'm unaware of the civil society address allocation model so withhold comment.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>I particularly like now your affirmation (I share in part) of the
need for the Internet to scale that IPs are allocated by ISPs. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And do you believe the ITU or civil society are ISPs?</div></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>However, I am not sure what RIRs, NRO, ICANN and the USGov have already
fully understood and accepted that subsidiarity. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Can you provide any evidence they have not?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Look, you are no more the IANA head, paid by ICANN and ultimately
reporting to the USGov as you described the things at that time. Here,
you are supposed to help the Civil Society members understand how the
other stakeholders, as you learned them, see the common world, and
therefore how we can jointly uncover a deeper consensus than the apparent
oppositions.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Thanks for letting me know what my role is.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>OpenStand is a strategy of business take-over of the internet. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>We disagree. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>we all have to accept that
architectural requirements result from historic/economic/egotistical
choices and are therefore political</div></blockquote><br></div><div>Actually, the architecture of the Internet (at least beyond the datagram model) was mostly driven by what worked at the time, even if it wasn't ideal to meet 'historic/economic/egotistical' requirements.</div><br><div>Regards,</div><div>-drc</div><div><br></div></body></html>