[governance] RE: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format

[McTim]

Parminder,

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I said exactly the opposite. I said that one reason why IETF did not make
>  ipv6 so much backward compatible could be - and here I was proposing an
>  mutual exploration of their possible reasons in  a very positive way - that
>  they were worried that if they did so, there would not be enough incentive
>  for all parts of the Internet to shift to ip6 and THAT WOULD lead to two
>  level Internet - and THEY DID NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. Entirely attributing
>  the very best motives to them. Pl read below.

I see now.  How could I have missed that?  A standards setting body
writing a non-backwards compatible spec in the fear that a compatible
one might not be fully utilised?  Silly me, should have been obvious.

As an apologia pro vita sua, I offer some "Haiku of the thread", and
will commit to use only the haiku form in further communications on
this issue, as both a penance and a finger/time saver.   Who knows, we
might be able to understand each other via poetry, as we certainly
aren't communicating via prose.

how close to Icann.
two layers. superior.
stuck with v4. Well.

rigging agenda.
No prizes for guessing who
the best policy.

North. South. Divided.
This needs to be debated.
Reconstituting.

It was a mistake.
And I havent got that answer.
all too flemingesque.

-- 
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