On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:57 PM, James Spenceley wrote: > 1. The proposal for a parallel address management system involves significant risks and therefore requires a clear problem statement, complete explanation of its details, and a thorough risk analysis of its consequence. The NAv6 paper satisfies none of these requirements. Therefore, the NAv6 proposal, the paper itself cannot be considered as a substantial basis for discussion at the ITU IPv6 Group's work. > > 2. Since concern about potential IPv6 exhaustion appears to be one of the fundamental concerns behind the ITU’s studies into IPv6, we suggest that the ITU conduct a study on this. > > 3. We ask the ITU's IPv6 Group follow the example of the Internet community and the IGF process and make its documents and records available publicly, so that all Internet stakeholders can participate in deliberations which could have global ramifications. We ask ITU Member States and Sector Members to recall the Tunis Agenda’s call for a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance and call on the ITU to support the current multi-stakeholder system of address management. Regarding point 2 in the "Action" list, I think we should not suggest that the ITU to conduct such a study, since that will prolong the situation needlessly. I suggest that we retain the gist of the point but move it under the existing paragraph in the section headed "Equitable distribution". Here's some suggested text: "This community believes there are no exhaustion issues associated with IPv6 and calls on recognised Industry experts to conduct a formal study into projections for IPv6 exhaustion to clarify this." This text add or change the statement, but simply moves to where it fits best - with the Internet experts qualified to conduct the research. -Bill
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part