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 governa
nce and call on the ITU to support the current multi-stakeholder s
ystem 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
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk