[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Wed Dec 25 11:47:12 UTC 2013
In message <4C51DA62-E49C-47BD-8C1F-D4B423398B05 at gmail.com>, at 18:47:31
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.
>Do you have a direct URL to them ?
We have to accept that ITU working practices are what they are, just as
I-star and others have working practices which aren't 100% open either.
I'm under the impression that for example regular ICANN board meetings
aren't something I can turn up to as an observer, nor are all the papers
the board members are issued with available on the open web.
For the ITU IPv6 meetings I alluded to earlier (and to which the RIRs
were invited to attend despite not, at the time, being Sector Members)
what follows is the same reply I gave to someone off-list yesterday, to
inform about an earlier IPv6 Governance debate, rather than demonstrate
whether the documents were open or not, or indeed available or not
(depending on how much effort is put into sourcing them):
"Several of the documents linked [from the url I posted] (and nearby) do
not require a TIEs account.
which is one of:
More information about the discuss