[governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits

[Izumi AIZU]

Hi,

We are organizing the IPv4-v6 Workshop in Rio;
*From IPv4 to IPv6: Challenges and Opportunities*
so this discussion is very interesting.

Please join this workshop on Nov 12 afternoon, right after the
opening ceremony if you are coming to Rio.

I am also a member of ICANN's AtLarge Advisory Committee,
which is supposed to delivere the individual users' voices into
ICANN process, and just came back from ICANN Los Angeles
meeting.

ALAC made the following statement at the Address Community's
(or ASO's) workshop. This is still a "draft", pending final edit and
consensus, but gives you the basic view of, at least, At Large
users community at present ICANN.

It was also a part of the ALAC Chair's presentation at the public
forum, the transcription of the entire forum can be seen here, (though
it is quite lengthy).

http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/LA-PublicForum2-1NOV07.txt

I think rather than finding who WAS responsible, etc, it is much
more constructive and important to find ways for solution for this
challenge - and it is I believe the job of ALL stakeholders, not just
one or the other.

Thanks and see you in Rio!

izumi
---------

We are aware that sometime within a few years the current pool of IPv4
addresses will expire, which may have a significant impact on the use of
Internet by broad public.

We ask the global address allocation registries to make sure that the
allocation of the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses be done in a fair and
equitable manner. The challenge here is what exactly we mean by "fair and
equitable" – and we understand that this requires an open and inclusive
policy development process. We respect the work done by the RIRs so far and
we are willing to actively participate more.

We are concerned about the potential creation of a "black market" of the
IPv4 addresses and call for a rational way to make a secondary market a
reality. We also call for a reasonable way of recollecting the unused IPv4
address blocks.

We also like to call for more outreach work initiated by the address
community to make sure that the issues are understood clearly and the
solutions are communicated openly.

We understand that the best solution to this challenge is to make a smooth
and orderly transition to the broad use of IPv6. There are several
challenges and tasks to make that to happen:

   - Organize awareness campaign for the need for timely transition
   - Avoid media scares by providing accurate information to wider public
   - Make sure all "public sites" by governments and commercial service
   providers implement IPv4-v6 dual capacity in a timely manner
   - That measures be taken to help developing countries to prepare for
   the transition in a timely and affordable manner
   - Prepare a timeline under which we can operate the transition
   program, such as outreach, technical assistance and other preparation in a
   timely manner so that suitable, reliable and effective planning can be made


2007/11/2, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org]
>
>
> >I fail to see why it's the *technical* community failure. Technically,
> >IPv6 works and do so for a long time. Its non-deployment is purely the
> >result of economical, financial and political decisions (or lack of),
> >without any technical issue involved.
>
> Well there are a few technical issues, some of them raised here by Randy
> Bush
>
> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf
>
> They mainly relate to co-existence with IPv4, implementation issues, and
> multi-homing. There are also some substantial technical issues in
> enterprise
> adoption. There are also incompatibilities with a lot of existing hardware
> and of course existing systems.
>
> If the upgrade was technically easy it might have been completed a decade
> ago! Sure, there are economic, financial and political factors at work as
> well, but...
>
> I described it as a technical community failure, not a technical failure.
> Vague term, I know, but the rollout has been a complete stuffup because
> the
> implementation factors weren't thought through carefully. A classic "build
> it and they will come" example.
>
> I take the point that blaming the technical community doesn't help.
> However,
> this does illustrate why the concept of technical only co-ordination is
> problematic and how in governance we need to develop structures that can
> assist in dealing with issues like this.
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.18/1104 - Release Date:
> 01/11/2007
> 18:47
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
           Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071105/18b7381f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071105/18b7381f/attachment.txt>