[discuss] Beyon IPv6...(evolution of IPv6 thread to what are we all doing here?)

Mon Dec 30 09:04:09 UTC 2013

+1. I would add that it is the holiday season, and many of us are doing things unrelated to email reading until it is over ;)


Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>Nathalie:
>
> 
>
>I think that part of the silence on the list can be explained in 3
>ways. 
>
> 
>
>First a number of us joined with a post-Bali near-term focus on the
>meeting that will take place in Brazil and some of the related meetings
>beyond that in the hopes of developing a coalition that would preserve
>the concepts related to the importance and utility of
>mutlistakeholderism in the Internet Governance conversation.  The
>question of what those terms may mean is an inherent part of that
>concept, but will likely present a set of issues that will be with us
>for some time to come.  You are absolutely right that any real movement
>towards closure on those issues will require the participation of more
>than 6 or 7 seven voices.  Part of the question is can we engage in
>that longer-term constructive conversation while still moving forward
>on constructive engagement related to the more near-term issues?  While
>I understand the causal linkage, I think the resolution timeframes are
>likely to be different; for example the question of the importance of
>the term "roles" and how the various stakeholder communities understand
>what the concept of roles mean.  I think we can all agree that we
>believe that stakeholders should have a broader role than merely being
>provided an opportunity to provide input, but that does not imply the
>role of co-decision-maker across the board - that is rooted in context
>and circumstances. Similarly, looking at the roles of the various
>institutions currently involved in Internet Governance is a large and
>complex proposition that may well be beyond the purview of any list
>beyond a discussion of issues and possibilities.
>
> 
>
>The second reason for the more limited participation may have to do
>with some of the earlier dynamics of the list which were, shall we say,
>less constructive in nature than the more recent exchanges.  We should
>all work to ensure that the more constructive engagement continues. 
>
> 
>
>The third reason is related to the first and goes back to the
>expectation of joining the list.  For those who were thinking more
>near/mid-term the level of detail engaged in the IPv6 conversation,
>while interesting and generally relevant, may not relate to the
>specific interests of participation. 
>
> 
>
>A number of posts to the list have bemoaned the inability to move
>forward based of a lack of common ground/expectation.  This is our
>Achilles heel.  This is a threaded discussion list and perhaps we can
>use that feature to better segregate our interests while understanding
>the need to cross pollinate ideas across the threads?  
>
> 
>
>We all share frustration at what this isn't, the question remains on
>how to find paths of consensus and possible processes to move us
>forward.  This is my humble attempt at trying to outline the problem
>and at least suggest  baby steps forward.
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Joe
>
> 
>
> 
>
>From: nathalie coupet [mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:23 AM
>To: JFC Morfin
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Anything specific? Was: Re: IPv6 Deployment and
>IG
>
> 
>
>+1
>
>Kudos to JFC. 
>
>1) I 'reported' to the group how ill-at-ease I (and many others) felt
>about WG participation at ICANN by talking about this lack of
>enthusiasm of participants, because  ICANN is often perceived as an
>imbroglio; the questions I submitted and the subsequent call for
>comments was in the hope of initiating a debate and input by all who
>had a broader view of the question to come up with solutions. Could we
>check if there is a consensus for change here and whether people accept
>some/all/none of the solutions presented in Weber-Gunnarson's report?
>(Report is attached) Are there other reports from authoritative sources
>that could help in this matter? Could we take action now?
>
>2) Do we (some/a few/the majority) agree to work on the definition of
>what is the Internet and/or Internet governance? Do we (some/a few/the
>majority) accept one of the definitions presented so far? Are there
>more definitions out there? If so, please provide them.      
>
>3) Could we agree on standards for engaging all stakeholders in
>discussions, such as when a new topic is presented by a participant,
>that he/she also submit historical background information or technical
>information we (the non-authoritative sources, category in which
>everyone at some point will fall into) could look at to be able to
>follow/add to the discussion? 
>
> 
>
>I (and also many others) would like this mailing list to turn into more
>than just a discussion between 6-7 people. How about a real outreach
>program to provide information to all stakeholders (especially
>newcomers and legislators) on a regular basis? I offer to volunteer to
>take part in such a venture, if there's a consensus about it. The
>antidote to inaction is action and information, is it not?        
>
> 
>
>Nathalie 
>
> 
>
>  _____  
>
>From: JFC Morfin <HYPERLINK
>"mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com"jefsey at jefsey.com>
>To: jefsey <HYPERLINK "mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com"jefsey at jefsey.com> 
>Cc: "HYPERLINK "mailto:discuss at 1net.org"discuss at 1net.org" <HYPERLINK
>"mailto:discuss at 1net.org"discuss at 1net.org> 
>Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:53 AM
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Anything specific? Was: Re: IPv6 Deployment and
>IG
>
> 
>
>At 22:35 28/12/2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>
>
>This is not to pick on Carlos, but I feel like I keep asking the same
>question, only to be met either with silence or hand-waving
>generalities.  I ask that people give a proposal for some particular
>thing that they want to see changed.
>
>
>Andrew,
>you keep asking this. I fully architectonically answered it. i.e. in a
>way that you should best understand and innovatively contribute and
>respond as an IETF leader.
>
>Let review this. We are supposed to be in an "MS" context. 
>
>This means:
>
>(1) As stakeholders everyone participates to the thinking of solutions
>that he/she may decide or not to implement where he/she is
>authoritative. 
>
>This does not change that some people are better problem reporters,
>other are better problem analysers and other are better problem
>solvers. Most people will tell you why they are unatease. If they known
>how to address it (technically or structurally) they would not report
>it: they would solve it. Governance is therefore when you do not know
>or cannot solve a difficulty alone in a complex environment. You need
>to discuss (analyse) it in common, in the hope that people bring the
>most diverse insights (so we miss nothing).
>
>This is why: 
>
>- people will never tell you: "this is to be changed" (how would they
>know that, in an entangled context, "fixing" this thing would not
>unballance many other things?).
>
>- saying that there is no need for a technical governance can only
>means two things:
>
>- either you are totally outside of the reality's complexity and/or a
>troll.
>
>- or you have clearly defined your technical area, proven its stability
>and made clear how it relates with the rest of the reality. Then you
>are a point of reference. This is what Brian Carpenter has achived for
>the end to end internet (i.e. what was defined by Vint Cerf and Bob
>Khan in 1974, applied to a limited version of Louis Pouzin's catenet
>from 1978 and embodied in by the proven RFC that are strictly
>restricted to its area, i.e. internet standards). Any other technical,
>political, cultural, etc. external issue having to interface/relate
>with it MUST be intergoverned.
>
>NB. For clarity sake, I prefer the word "intergovernance" when one
>discusses the governance of the relations between islands of technical,
>political, personal, etc. authority or sovereignty. This is in order to
>show that what is subject to governance is not, as Brian says, the
>parameters, but the interrelations of the authorities which establish
>or use them.
>
>(1.1.) you will not be told any particular things that people want to
>see changed. Except by your own pears and in very
>seldom/architectonical cases and in the framework of an architectonical
>or architectural fix afte deep and throughout consideration.
>
>(1.2.) you will never have proposals for things to be changed. You will
>have:
>- either analysis (like mine) to tell you where analysers think the
>people reported problems come from (and you will most probably have
>different analyses to compare). 
>- or information on works engaged by "lead users" following some (or a
>synthesis) of these analyses. Fadi's GS1 is not the only EDI culture.
>The current silence about the internet of things leads to fear the Fadi
>does not try to address a need, but to influence a solution (which
>might be a good one, but which is neither open nor discussed).
>
>Where we need mutual governance it is to prevent confusion. Exemple: I
>have no problem (except time and money) in implementing and
>disseminating my own vision of the catenet evolution based upon the
>Tymnet and Internet experiences and the internet achievements. I
>consider that this lack of time and money is a common interest
>precautionary protection against what could still be uncompleted in my
>thinking. I am therefore obliged to convince those who will help me and
>use my deliverables, showing them that my vision is correct. We are
>back to "running code". This obliges to a perpetual enhancement. For a
>long time, my "intersem" is not cast into iron as Brian's "internet".
>
>Users will not bring you running code. Except, lead users. This is why
>Russ Housley has accepted the IUCG at IETF mailing list (It also shows
>that lead-usership takes time to take-off among IG members and Civil
>Society activists with technical skills).
>
>
>(2) Therefore, people tell you what they feel wrong.
>
>
>
>
>Not, "We need better governance," or, "We need improvements," or, "This
>could be improved too," or such vague and, frankly, empty claims.
>
>
>It is up to you/us (technical - political solvers) to translate it in
>things to correct and to propose solutions.
>
>
>(3) in this process candidate solvers must demonstrate (precautionary
>duty) that their proposed solutions will be efficient and resilient.
>
>
>
>
>Instead, what exactly needs to be changed?
>
>
>Mainly two things: 
>
>(1) what they clearly express,
>
>i.e. the lack of users' post-Snowden trust in the technology, hence in
>its engineering.and therefore in its governance's capacity to provoque
>the necessary research, normalization, development, validation and
>deployment strategies. What is exactly to be changed is not up to the
>stakeholders to tell, but to the solvers. Stakeholders can only discuss
>it and adhere (or not) to the proposed solutions.
>
>(2) trades and special uses support. 
>
>In this ICANN is a significant interface with reality. 
>- Dedicated (trade, cultures, linguistic, usages, etc.) areas
>consideration was approached since 2000 by new TLDs. 
>- The lack of layer six IETF  (bare passive text content) is acceptable
>for surveillance, it is not for traceability and big data. 
>- RFC 6852 generalizes the concern in refering to global markets
>economy as a normalization guide.
>- ICANN expressed it in hiring Fadi Chehade from the GS1 world. 
>- ISOC expresses a need of general coherence in hiring Kathy Brown from
>both Govs (FCC) and Telcos (Verizon).
>
>Take care.
>jfc
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>HYPERLINK "mailto:discuss at 1net.org"discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131230/a9ebe75b/attachment-0001.html>