As suggested yesterday I think point two should be replaced and I
believe the wording bill suggest addresses my concerns.
- kurtis -
On 5 mar 2010, at 05.24, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:57 PM, James Spenceley wrote:
>> 1. The proposal for a parallel address management system
>> involves significant risks and therefore requires a clear problem
>> statement, complete explanation of its details, and a thorough risk
>> analysis of its consequence. The NAv6 paper satisfies none of
>> these requirements. Therefore, the NAv6 proposal, the paper itself
>> cannot be considered as a substantial basis for discussion at the
>> ITU IPv6 Group's work.
>> 2. Since concern about potential IPv6 exhaustion appears to be
>> one of the fundamental concerns behind the ITUâs studies into IPv6
>> , we suggest that the ITU conduct a study on this.
>> 3. We ask the ITU's IPv6 Group follow the example of the
>> Internet community and the IGF process and make its documents and
>> records available publicly, so that all Internet stakeholders can
>> participate in deliberations which could have global ramifications.
>> We ask ITU Member States and Sector Members to recall the Tunis
>> Agendaâs call for a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governa
>> nce and call on the ITU to support the current multi-stakeholder s
>> ystem of address management.
> Regarding point 2 in the "Action" list, I think we should not
> suggest that the ITU to conduct such a study, since that will
> prolong the situation needlessly.
> I suggest that we retain the gist of the point but move it under the
> existing paragraph in the section headed "Equitable distribution".
> Here's some suggested text:
> "This community believes there are no exhaustion issues associated
> with IPv6 and calls on recognised Industry experts to conduct a
> formal study into projections for IPv6 exhaustion to clarify this."
> This text add or change the statement, but simply moves to where it
> fits best - with the Internet experts qualified to conduct the
> apnic-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
apnic-talk mailing list