[governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 01:16:36 EST 2010


Morning (in Nairobi) Milton,

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> > Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be
>> > more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we
>> > really want to put out these fires?
>>
>> If by useful you mean inducing hundreds of people to
>> simultaneously get up for a coffee break or try to check
>> their mail, sure.  Otherwise, no.  Not the purpose of an IGF
>> main session.
>>
>> What would be useful though would be for there to be a
>> regularized stream of properly calibrated techie tutorial
>> sessions available alongside the workshops, open forums, etc
>> for people who want to know more.  I've never understood why
>
> Problem is, Bill, the politics are deeply embedded in the technology. You have to know both. Compare McTim's description of "needs-based allocations" to mine in my last message. No, the last thing we need are the RIRs and ISOC lecturing about how IP address allocation is all based on rational technical criteria and couldn't possibly be done any other way.

I think "shouldn't" not "couldn't" best describes my position.  Of
course, I don't speak for ISOC or the RIRs, so YMMV.


 If you want a real glimpse into the political issues and problems
posed in this area, you have to go onto their policy lists and (yes)
sink or swim in the techno-jargon until you figure out what is really
going on. The RIRs' policy lists have truly fascinating, honest,
bare-all, bare-knuckled policy fights where the real stakes come out
on display. Put the same people in front of an IGF main session or
tutorial, on the other hand, and suddenly it's a bland, mainstreamed
session delivering the party line and pretending there's nothing
contentious about any of it....zzzzz.

I think this may be correct, and as it should be.  The appropriate
forum for RIR policy discussions are the RIR policy lists.  The IGF is
for capacity building around how these policy fora operate.  This
thread shows how much need we still have for capacity building.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


More information about the Governance mailing list