[governance] tick, tick, tick...

Mon Sep 10 00:29:56 EDT 2007

Hi all
I have been trying to follow the discussion on the speakers part , and I was wondering he same.! We are close to the Conference !

Shaila Rao Mistry
California

Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote: Everyone, 

I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing
whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic 
at IGF.

Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away.

So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but
still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock is
ticking.

Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators
suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio?

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>>
Hi Avri,

On 9/8/07, Avri Doria  wrote:
>
> On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote:
>
> > MM
> >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the
> >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions.
> >
> > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago.  I think
it
> > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those
> > two.)  Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists.
I
> > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really
wwant
> > to gain "expertise" in these fields.
>
>
> actually they have been bickering about it again.  check out the
> threads:
>
> IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html 

Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's
hardly "serious
policy debate".  If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the
rounds (which I haven't seen).

As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities
aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are
proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match
their requirements.

>
> and
>
> IPv6 RIR  Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after
all]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html 
>
> I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a
> round to it,
> and the debate is still ongoing.
>

Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the
ones who make the policies.  The IETF made architectural decisions.  I
don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general
discussion list, and NOT a WG list.

> but it is an interesting thread.
>
> a good and breif synopisis is:
> >
> > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to
> > second-guess IETF design decisions.

The above is a good summary of the situation.  However, it's not like
some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6.

The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is
what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would
suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues,
which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this
list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where
they can actually make a difference.

Milton.
I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most
(but not all) on this list.  I know more because I have been reading
dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years,
while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines
and blogs.  I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute
internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does
just that.  If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right,
the IGF is the place to be.

I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage.  Of
the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on
ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to
an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica,
critical of the ARIN statement.  While this is "publishing", it
doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you
can make a hyperlink ;-)

Parminder
I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken
out of a statement, not "off the list".

Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy
folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the
germaine technical policy fora.  I am only "partisan" when it comes to
retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest
of your first reply.

As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it
sounds bad when you say it).  I have always been a "Minnesota
knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my
home state.  I don't think it's the same tho.

I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in
a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a
corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for
the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that.

I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I
don't much care.

-- 
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
____________________________________________________________
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

    Jeene ke hain chaar din, baaqi hain bekaar din
Jaaye jaaye, jaaye jaaye, jaaye jaaye !
Ek baar jo jaaye, jawaani phir na aaye !

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070909/2f84a72c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070909/2f84a72c/attachment.txt>