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 ITU’s 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 Agenda’s call for a multi-stakeholder approach to
> Internet governance and call on the ITU to support the current
> multi-stakeholder system 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 research.
apnic-talk mailing list