[discuss] Role for policy analysis and other stakeholders in Ig - was Re:  Report from ...
avri at acm.org
Thu Jan 2 15:53:02 UTC 2014
On 02-Jan-14 10:28, Hartmut Glaser wrote:
> Please replace the subject ...!
> Hartmut Glaser
>> On 02/01/2014, at 13:22, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> On 02-Jan-14 09:41, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>> Agree Avri, and this is the kind of reasoning that we, from the
>>> technical community, must be open enough to agree to explore …. We
>>> should not bash out perceived (or even sometime very real) problems
>>> just because no one want to work on new technical challenge that
>>> addressing the issue may pose.
>>> Perceived problems are not problems. If you base technical analysis and
>>> development based on perception you will get perceived solutions.
>>> My .02
>> Thank you.
>> When doing risk or impact analysis, however, one has nothing but perceived problems - it is not until later that one finds out how the world actually unfolded. Sometimes, when impact analysis, planning, design and implementation do their job properly, the perceived problems are dealt with easily. Sometimes a perceived problem is just a problem averted. And sometimes a perceive problem is just that, a possible that never became actual.
>> In terms of perceived problems, IPv4 has been running out since the early 1990s - I think that was when I saw the first projections. With approximately half of the addresses still unused today, one can ask: to what extent this particular perceived problem turned into a self fulfilling prophecy? So yes, one has to be careful with the risk and impact analyses to not become so dedicated to ones own perceived problem set, one actually brings it about.
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss