<html><head><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;">I find myself in general agreement with McTim and Daniel.<div>Arguing for equity on a Westphalian basis, or even on a population basis, does not seem helpful, especially in retrospect. </div><div>And we have a good solution that will be helpful for practical solutions to this problem - IPv6. </div><div><br></div><div>India's proposal seems a bad political attempt to solve a problem for which there are good technical solutions available. </div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br><div><div><div>On 28 Oct 2014, at 8:33 pm, Daniel Kalchev <<a href="mailto:daniel@digsys.bg">daniel@digsys.bg</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br><br>On 28.10.14 13:49, JFC Morfin wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">At 10:12 28/10/2014, McTim wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I will be happy to declare a victory if I can convince you that<br>thinking of<br>IP resource distribution in Westphalian terms isn't useful.<br></blockquote><br>dear Guru and McTim,<br><br>I would be happy to declare peace the day [inapropriate] dogmatisms are<br>removed from where they do not belong. Please stop thinking in "XIXth<br>reviewing XVIIth" paradigms. The (uncompleted) XXIth paradigm has been<br>explicited by IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C in RFC 6852 and the way to<br>administratively address it by IETF, ITU, ICANN and W3C in RFC 2691.<br><br>What is archaic is the IPv6 and IDNS management entrusted to governance<br>structures designed by the NTIA to manage IPv4 and the US-DNS and the<br>adoration of the gods of administrative and technical status-quoes.<br><br>Did any of you heard about LISP, NDN, SDN, ISO layer six, IEN 48<br>objective, etc?<br></blockquote><br>Excuse my intrusion in this higher-than-my-desire-to-argue level of<br>discussion, but...<br><br>Remember X.400? An arguably better designed, better specified and<br>documented protocol than SMTP, yet it failed miserably.<br><br>Why? Because the intents were malicious.<br><br>Humans seek freedom. And even when they appear to bend under governance<br>"for the greater good", they still continue to seek freedom.<br><br>It is indeed appropriate to remove the dogmatism in this discussion and<br>replace it with common sense.<br><br>The common sense says this initiative will fail. It also says this will<br>be yet another good example, which will be ignored, as usual.<br>For it is in human nature to try to demonstrate you are better (choice)<br>than the other guy/gal (nothing to do with technology).<br><br>Yep, I know.. ;)<br><br>Daniel<br><br>PS: In any case, do not mind being enlightened about the subtle<br>political differences between IPv6 and IPv4 address space management. To<br>my engineer mind, both are numbers. Might be the size difference creates<br>a new dimension?<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>