[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Mon Dec 30 17:12:33 UTC 2013
<CAMzo+1Zi7TCzWu2gQ29XBc2j+sK05bQtV2owZ-qF-UrcNw7+pg at mail.gmail.com>, at
09:42:51 on Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> writes
>> If IPv6 had been devised as backwards compatible, then my problems (and
>> those of millions of other business users) would be much less. I believe
>> that to be an IG issue, under Tunis Agenda #59 (and others).
>Being one of "the most experienced and prolific contributors to the Internet "
... regulation landscape.
It's been my full time occupation for some 14 years, so it does tend to
add up. One example is that I was probably once of the few people to
have attended every single Geneva prep/consultation and annual session
of the IGF in its first five years. They don't hand out 'long service'
badges like ICANN does though.
>you should already know how to do that.
I think I'd need a time machine to change the backwards-compatiblity
issues in IPv6.
If you mean "I should know how to implement IPv6 within my SME", yes I
do, because I'm one of the few IG people whose background is as an IT
engineer rather than a lawyer; but what irks me is the assumption that I
should be cheerful about doing that work and buying all that new stuff.
>It is really an evolution and I don't remember anybody banging on the
>doors of IG when DEC, Netscape, Altavista, AOL, etc, etc, went dark.
They are applications, not connectivity. We expect applications to churn
but connectivity should be stable.
>But I've to agree with you, no doubt end users are completely
>misrepresented in the IG world.
More information about the discuss