[discuss] Problem statement P1

[Michel Gauthier]

At 23:11 21/01/2014, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>It is clear by now that one part of the satisfactions it desires 
>lies within George's well planned research program, though it may be 
>uneachable.
>
>What do we do with the rest of Internet governance? Do we wait for 
>the 11 additional governments to be seated and write their cahier de charges?

George's points looks like the ICANN Sao Paulo shopping list. Now, 
want to know;
- what is the Govs' reclaimed counterpart?
- who will be the Sao Paulo lead Govs interested to possibly deal with ICANN.

>Or, start identifying non-ICANN issues in Internet governance which 
>are worth an attempt to solve them, since we are all

"all"?
225 people on behalf of 2 billions stakeholders? Could we not have a 
Thomas Narten's break down?

>(except governments, yeah) already talking?
>Or disband?

George has already suggested a list split.
Does this mean that now the committees rank and files have been 
designated and the ICANN's claim published, /1net as a list is of no more use?

At 23:34 21/01/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>On 22/01/2014 11:11, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>...
> > Or, start identifying non-ICANN issues in Internet governance which are
> > worth an attempt to solve them, since we are all (except governments, yeah)
> > already talking?
>
>Please!

Brian, could you be so kind as to explain this?
- is it that you think that enough is enough? and that this goes to no where?
- or that you think real problems have not been addressed yet?
- or something else?

John, have RIRs no requirements to add (time to speak-up on IPv6 or 
is it a collision interest with some ccTLDs and Govs' whishing to 
introduce their internet national code, address, and names national 
registries" (i.e. a national IPv6 range, the national TLD and local 
GS1 affiliate).

MG