[governance] Towards Singapore

[McTim]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> On 26 May 2011, at 00:14, McTim wrote:
>
>>> In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even-handed
>>> public service.
>>
>> in its numbering bits, I think ICANN passes the test with flying
>> colors, naming bits, less so.
>
>
> you mean in terms of ipv4 and ipv6.
> and proper shepherding of the remaining ipv4 resources.
> and a reasonable plan for long term coexistence

no, I was referring to David's comments about trust/even-handed public service.


>
> i dispute that completely.  i think ITC behavior in the realm of 'numbering' has been anything but a pass with flying colors.  i am not even sure i think it passes.

What would you have had the RIR communities who make policy do any
differently?

Certainly the IETF could have made the v6 compatible with v4, but they
didn't.  You can't blame the numbering policy community for that.


-- 
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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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