[governance] tick, tick, tick...

Mon Sep 10 00:39:27 EDT 2007

> 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.
>

Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a
scheme for this within the next 24 hours.

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick...
> 
> 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 <avri at psg.com> 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

____________________________________________________________
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