[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Community Statement to ITU

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Community Statement to ITU
From: Seiichi Kawamura
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:40:12 +0900
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Terry

> May I suggest "single unified address management framework"?

I hate to dig into nits, but
"unified" seemed a bit odd.

I think the intention here is to show
the single tree where every branch(RIR) opertaes
under the request base allcation. But every branch is
not the same, each branch has its own decision making
process, and APNIC has NIRs so "uni" may give the
wrong impression.

I tend to prefer the original text, but
I'm not a native english speaker anymore...

Regards,
Seiichi

Terry Manderson wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> May I offer some suggestions?
> 
> On 03/03/2010, at 7:39 PM, James Spenceley wrote:
>> -------------
>> Introduction
>> -------------
>>
>> IP address management is fundamental to ongoing Internet stability. Over the 
>> past decade the Internet has become fundamental to the world’s economy. The 
>> Internet is truly global. What happens in one part of the world affects the 
>> rest of the world. So changes in IP address management could affect billions 
>> of devices globally, irrespective of the country where they are located.
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>> The importance of an open environment
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> The Internet has become what it is today because of the open, transparent, 
>> bottom-up process used to develop the Internet’s protocols and management 
>> policies. Everyone is encouraged to participate.
>>
>> RIR decision making has no barriers to participation. Anyone, including 
>> government, can have their say. This is made transparent by public archives 
>> of the decision making process, including mailing lists, video, and meeting 
>> transcripts.
>>
>> Risks of introducing a parallel address management system
>>
> 
> Did you mean to put the above in "-------------" encapsulation?
> 
>> The operational stability, security, and efficiency of the Internet relies 
>> on a single consistent address management 
> 
> May I suggest "single unified address management framework"?
> 
> There are slight differences in the various RIR policies, not enough to 
> suggest they are in conflict. But I would prefer not to see a discussion of 
> terms in how consistent they are or are not.
> 
> 
>> framework. The introduction of "competing" address management systems is not 
>> desired by network operators, and carries the strong risk of fragmenting 
>> address management policies, of fragmenting the Internet itself, and of 
>> compromising the Internet’s security and stability.
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Equitable Distribution
>> -----------------------
>>
>> We note the equitable distribution of addresses is already in place in the 
>> current IPv6 management system and addresses are being deployed actively and 
>> effectively throughout the world at this time. Each RIR already has the same 
>> sized block to distribute to networks within their region.
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Actions
>> -----------------------
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I think Woody's suggestion is ample here.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I've been thinking about a "4." But will leave it for your consideration. 
> Much of this seems to originate with ITU member states not understanding that 
> they can join and participate in the discussions/process, or simply that 
> their adopted governance culture promotes a invitation/attendance policy.
> 
> Perhaps a further explicit invitation via the ITU to all ITU member 
> states/bodies to attend the upcoming and listed various RIR meetings, since 
> it seems I (as an average Joe) can't walk into the upcoming ITU IPv6 meeting. 
> Dare I suggest paper style invitations or direct invites.
> 
> After all we are inclusive.
> 
> My last point (from re-reading the transcripts) is that there are ITU member 
> states who are really concerned that they might miss out on v6. Surely if 
> APNIC (and perhaps other RIRs) can construct LDC discounts for members, then 
> the RIR policy process being amenable to hearing and addressing their direct 
> concerns can be emphasised.
> 
> Cheers
> Terry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuQmTsACgkQcrhTYfxyMkIOCwCghBaC1KDGuefPjhPysoIAd05L
aR8AniGJ4m4BsblkGeXGi6QqLtfxVIs+
=/rZw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>