[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
jmamodio at gmail.com
Wed Dec 25 12:34:18 UTC 2013
> On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:47 AM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely, transparency, accountability and access to information is still one of the big challenges in the ICANNsphere, but overall, agendas, minutes and BoD resolutions and reports are publicly available and many of the discussions (GAC not included) of all constituencies are publicly available.
IETF working drafts, working groups email lists and documents, meeting transcripts and proceedings are ALL publicly available.
> 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):
To be frank really irrelevant, the IPv6 Study Group you referred to and provided as a reference for the "IPv6 ITU issue" was closed in 2012 after "completing" it's work, and if people want to know what was the outcome and final conclusions by reading the SG Chairman report, they can't since it's behind TIES access.
Not a ver good example, while the contribution 50 document is openly available, all but one of the documents referenced in section 3. " Discussions in SG2" require TIES access.
Then going back to the original point there is no rationale or valid argument to include "ITU IPv6 allocation" as a problem to solve at the IG layer.
More information about the discuss