[governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources'

[Guru@ITfC]

McTim

I fully agree with your assertion that "the bottom up nature of Internet
policy making is "the best of all possible worlds" from a CS standpoint....
No other policy framework is going to give CS folk a voice as loud as the
one they have now". Our efforts must aim to ensure and enhance CS
participation in multi-stakeholder governance; though I would say that these
new governance structures still need to mature to provide equitable
influence to different stakeholder groups ... The dice is loaded more in
favor of some ... US, EU governments ..., transnational businesses and Civil
society groups largely based in these places ... If we understand 'internet
community' to be comprised of all those who are affected (and if we can look
forward, then we would include 'those who will be impacted even if they are
not today') by it, then we pretty much cover most of humanity and I am not
sure if we can assume that the current 'power' structures are in a position
to adequately factor in the concerns of many other groups ... 

Also I fully agree with your statement that "In the few notable examples
where people / institutions who govern have gotten involved (Japan/S. Korea
and to a more limited extent the USA) in urging IPv6 deployment, governments
have "decided" to make it national policy to push v6 usage, and these have
been successful initiatives in promoting v6 deployments". So 'policy' can
have a strong influence on progressive changes like moving to v6. And this
would also not leave us to depend on the market forces alone ... When will
consumers demand v6? Relying solely on the 'market' may mean that we wake up
too late to the challenge of depleted numbers and do not have adequate time
to make a large transition as v4-v6. 

While this 'choking' will by and large affect all across the globe, it is
nevertheless a fair assertion that more of the people who will suffer will
be those in places where the 'increase' in demand for numbers (new devices
added to the network) will be much higher ... Which includes China and
India. While many of these devices / organizations that use them will be
transborder, I guess most of them would be within national boundaries ... So
would you agree that Indian and Chinese Governments (and other groups from
these regions  including the RIRs) need to push for quicker transition to v6
in the interests of their 'consumers' ('citizens')? Through (both national
and) global governance structures?

I would like to quote a recent ALAC statement on this issue: "We like to ask
the global address allocation registries to make sure that the allocation of
remaining pool of IPv4 address will 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 open and inclusive policy development process"
..... And that "Measures be taken to help developing countries to prepare
the transition in a timely and affordable manner". 

Maybe this requires more concerted efforts ... 

Guru
Ps - pleasantly surprised at the extent of our agreement :-)  ... We can
discuss more at the Governance Frameworks for cir workshop
(http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37) on Nov 14 ...

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:35 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC
Subject: Re: [governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' ....
Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources'

Guru,


On 11/4/07, Guru at ITfC <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Not very long back, the thrust of quite a few discussions and 
> submissions on ig was  "... Ig issues are really technical in nature 
> and should be left to 'neutral' technical bodies and experts to decide 
> ... And should not be 'politicised' or become a playground for 
> non-experts, including Governments to influence or participate in decision
making ...."

Is this an actual quote?? I am guessing not.  If you want to characterize
the viewpoint more fairly, how about  "IG issues are largely administrative
in nature, and shouldn't be "left" to anyone, rather it's the province of
those governments, CS actors and engineers who choose to participate in the
bottom-up policy making processes of the existing neutral administrative
bodies."

Guru - I agree, though I do not understand the term 'neutral'

>
> So here we seem to have moved 180 degree to assert that the (non) move 
> to
> IPv6 is really a political and policy failure than a technical one.

Who is we?  Paul's mail, which said "economical, financial and political
decisions (or lack of), without any technical issue involved." was spot on.

The big drivers are economic and financial, with politics coming a distant
third.

For example, if you as a CS organisation or end-user demand that your ISP
give you IPv6 connectivity, then you might get it, but until enough people
demand the service, it won't be supplied.  Since their is no "killer app"
driving IPv6, very few are demanding it, hence the slow rollout.


I agree,
> for how can the technical community make a move happen or not happen, 
> they can only provide (valuable) substantive inputs on the need for 
> the move and the pros and cons ... And people / institutions who 
> govern / play a role in governance need to make the larger decisions 
> of movement

Well yes, and no.  In the case of v6, it was the IETF who set the
standard over 10 years ago, so they clearly made that "happen".   In
the few notable examples where people / institutions who govern have gotten
involved (Japan/S. Korea and to a more limited extent the USA) in urging
IPv6 deployment, governments have "decided" to make it national policy to
push v6 usage, and these have been successful initiatives in promoting v6
deployments.

Paul is entirely correct that in the absence of such initiatives, it's then
left to the marketplace to drive IPv6 usage.  In other words, it's largely
ISPs who make these decisions based on the market, and it's largely up to
the beancounters in these organizations, and NOT the propeller-heads.  (If
it were up to the engineers, I think we would all have IPv6 enabled toasters
by now.)

>
> An element of policy or politics is inherent in such movements, since 
> invariably they have pros and cons and affect different sections 
> differently ... For e.g. one perspective could be that the move to 
> IPv6 is critical for nations as India or China that will need 
> significant 'quantity' of these resources in the days to come ... 
> While the move involves costs (of
> migration) for the current players, without commensurate benefits to them.

Well, it will be critical for all network operators certainly at some point,
and that point will be reached at the same time (roughly) for all network
operators whether they are in the USA or in China.  I think it's nonsensical
to say that "country X consumes IP addresses", because it's actually
organisations located in country X that do the consuming, but that same org
may also be in country Y.  LIR assignments and sub-allocations are made
across borders.

>
> So are we also saying that the original wisdom of internet being 
> ideally "self-regulated" by an "internal / trade-association" is not 
> really valid....

No, WE are not saying that at all.  First of all, the notion that IPv6 was
designed by a "trade association" is misguided.   Second, and most
importantly, the bottom up nature of Internet policy making is "the best of
all possible worlds" from a CS standpoint.  It boggles my mind why CS actors
would reject it.  No other policy framework is going to give CS folk a voice
as loud as the one they have now.

And we need to explore governance structures and processes that
> would do both - get the best of technical inputs in, as well as 
> negotiate amongst multiple stakeholders to arrive at decisions that 
> are both 'desirable' and 'implementable' ....  ("War is too important 
> to be left to the generals")

AFAIAC, we HAVE governance structures and processes that can do both.
It's just that some stakeholders don't come to the table(s) where these
decisions are made.

>
> I am also intrigued by Paul's assertion that "... which is that 
> progress may rely, in the end, on demand at the consumer/grassroots 
> level". I am not able visualise a billion Indians standing up to demand
IPv6 implementation ...

It will probably only take a critical mass of corporate IT folk in India
demanding that their ISP give them native IPv6 connectivity.
This may only happen once they are unable to get more IPv4 address space,
which may make it harder for their customers to get the services that Ray is
on about.

Do you have IPv6 connectivity at your office?  If not, ask your ISP if they
can deliver it. If they can't, then shop for one who can.  Your current ISP
will get the message eventually.  That's one way to drive
IPv6 deployment.

> Policy making perhaps is more complex than 'meeting the demand 
> articulated by consumers', though the needs of individuals is indeed a 
> critical input to policy.

Well, as Janis Karklins said in LA,
"Specifically, the GAC noted the important need for the continued good
management of the IPv4 address space in light of the depletion of the free
pool and urgent need for initiatives by all relevant stakeholders to ensure
the acceleration of deployment and use of IPv6 addresses."

In India, you have an active IPv6 body http://ipv6forum.in/, so perhaps you
can work with them (if you are not already).

Guru - Thanks for this info ...
--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

____________________________________________________________
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