[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

Tue Dec 24 17:45:02 UTC 2013

In message <3F3260E0-6F18-4545-94DD-BAC10DD03F25 at gmail.com>, at 08:11:52 
on Tue, 24 Dec 2013, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> writes
>
>That proposal and subsequent meetings have been based on a long list of 
>flawed assumptions, like that developing countries will not get their 
>fare share of allocation of IPv6 address space and that allocation and 
>assignment policies of IPv4 will be replicated for IPv6.

Many people would agree with you, but it's necessary to turn up and say 
that.

>And following ITU openness many if not all the documents related to 
>that WG require TIES access.

A surprisingly large number don't.

>In summary ITU's claim that IPv6 allocation is broken is 100% bogus and 
>unfounded.

Many people would agree with you, but it's necessary to turn up and say 
that.

>-Jorge
>
>> On Dec 24, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Roland Perry 
>><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>> In message 
>><20131222141221.7A40A21AB6 at inbound-queue-3.mail.thdo.gradwell.net>, at 
>>15:11:58 on Sun, 22 Dec 2013, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> writes
>>>> eg (and no specific criticism intended, the 
>>>>something-is-broken-we-must-fix-it meme is pervasive) the ITU 
>>>>claiming IPv6 allocation is broken,
>>>
>>> Would you have the URL of an ITU comprehensive review of the matter?
>>> Thank you!
>>
>> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/others/ipv6/Pages/default.aspx for the 
>>meetings I was referring to.
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Roland Perry