[governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD

[Hindenburgo Pires]

Dear Colleagues,

I decided to enter this discussion about IPv6 address allocations to DOD.

All criteria are rational, however, we need to know what criteria were and
why they were developed by a group of people from a single country and not
by collective forum.  I agree with Ian Peter, It would be good to know the
exact number? The issue is not the criteria or numbers but the legitimacy of
the adoption of these measures, without the universal acceptance of these
criteria by the nations and countries.

These authoritarian measures undermine the sovereignty and national security
of all other countries in the world. The philosophical issues that remains
are: where are the principles of democracy and freedom in these criteria?

-- 
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires
Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Geografia Humana
Instituto de Geografia • Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ
http://www.cibergeo.org/artigos/


2010/2/4 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>

> Hi Milton
>
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Milton L Mueller 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.
>
> So we shouldn't allow people who could use some technical capacity building
> to get it because they might drink a bit of kool-aid and acquire false
> consciousness in the process?  I don't agree.  There are a lot of people
> attending IGFs who don't have strong technical backgrounds and could benefit
> from some well presented nuts and bolts, how does stuff work material.
>  Their ability to formulate judgements on how IPVG sub-netting should or
> could work would be enhanced if first they could find out what IPVG
> sub-netting is and why it matters.  And with respect to the second step,
> should or could work, there's no reason such sessions couldn't include
> presentations by people with different points of view.  Personally, I would
> be very happy to attend a session that walked through the basics and then
> had you and McTim debating the merits of different approaches to the
> governance dimensions.  We'd just need to have an open and participatory
> process of designing and staffing the sessions, rather than simply handing
> responsibility to organizations that might offer singular answers to
> contestable questions.
>
> This strikes me as a far better approach than simply denying people access
> to knowledge out of fear they might hear stuff you think is slanted.
>  Moreover, insofar as most if not all IGF attendees are already aware that
> there are politics and material interests involved, I wouldn't presume that
> people are so naive and impressionable that they need to be protected and
> are better off not knowing the nuts and bolts.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure, if everyone had infinite bandwidth they could do this.  But they
> don't, and hence don't.  It's not an answer.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, zzz to you.  But you are not the target audience.
> >
> > Actually at ICANN meetings there are some pretty darn good tutorials.
> That's because the audience at ICANN is more heterogeneous and includes
> business people, lawyers, governments and NGOs as well as techies. If you
> wanted to catch up on dnssec issues or IDN policy issues or other vexatious
> intersections between tech standards and policies, some of the icann
> workshops have been good. They, too have their party line to promote but
> typically there's a clueful enough audience to afford the opportunity for
> some debate and dialogue.
>
> Understood, but also not an answer, sorry.  Many if not most IGF attendees
> are not going to chase ICANN around the world.  Plus, even for those of us
> who do, it can be a bit difficult to find time in the insanely packed
> schedules to attend these sessions, especially if one's involved in an SO or
> AC that's programmed wall to wall.
>
> Again, please bear in mind the diverse crowds that come to IGFs.  Someone
> who works for a single issue NGO or the foreign ministry of a developing
> country or whatever is not going to reorganize their lives to be able to
> dive fully into the work flows of the various administrative bodies and
> after a few years start piecing things together.  Nothing personal, but I am
> persistently astonished when folks like McTim and now you offer this as the
> only path to enlightenment.  People are busy with other things and doing IGF
> will often be about as much as they can commit.  I cannot fathom why we
> wouldn't want to use the opportunity to expose them to something, which is
> better than nothing, on the premise that what they really should be doing is
> getting exposed to everything instead.  Don't you teach any undergrad
> students at Syracuse?  Would you say that a student who's majoring in poli
> sci or economics should not take a survey course with you and get some
> baseline exposure to IG issues, instead they must change their major to
> information studies, take every course you offer (now that's a scary thought
> ;-) and then go on to a PhD, and then and only then will they know something
> useful?
>
> Pedagogically puzzled,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100204/db321948/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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