[Bp_ipv6] Next call Tuesday 14th July, UTC14:00 Re: [Intersessional_2015] doodle - next week's BPF IPv6 call

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Jul 14 08:03:04 EDT 2015

Thanks Marco for your input.

I understood your point that:

 -  I considering areas to cover, keep in mind what problem we want to address and the target audience
 -  Our focus should be on non-technical context.
    This is important to reach out to IGF participants. The current text looks very technicallly focused.
 -  Make sure the contributions are inline with the scope.
    The group should be concious not to dupicate the efforts of the others, as stated in the Scope and Goals
It's a good reminder for those who contribute and I would encourage the group to review the current document with this point in mind.

The areas of measures/activities in the previous e-mail are listed to give a comprehensive picture of where the measures/measures are in the overall context.
It probably would be helpful to have a brief description of each, to give the readers a general understanding of different areas of measures in the background paper.

This doesn't necessarily mean however we must cover all areas listed in our BP paper  - and this is exactly the discussions I was hoping to have at the coming call.
I see you identified two areas to focus “outreach and awareness”and  "Incentives stimulating IPv6 uptake”. 

It would be good to discuss more at the call with other participants as well, and ofcourse, feedback online is welcome too.

Looking forward to talk to those who can join soon.


On 2015/07/14 20:28, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> As we will be making an open call for contributions shortly, we would like to discuss at the coming call, the area to focus and how we compile them into a document.
>> * Measuring and sharing information on the status of IPv6 deployment
>> * Community Building
>> * Capacity Building
>> * Outreach and awareness raising
>> * Knowledge and experience sharing
>> * Incentives stimulating IPv6 uptake
> Hey Izumi,
> I’ll be on the call, but as a preliminary want to highlight some of my concerns. Hopefully the call will be well attended and we can focus the discussion on some of the remedies.
> In light of the topics above, I agreee, but the magic word is context and what is the exact problem is it that we want to address in the final outcome, more importantly I would like to addres the question: “who is going to read this?”
> While discussing scope and goal there was quick consensus these efforts should not duplicate efforts already undertaken in other stakeholder groups, especially the Internet technical community. This is emphasised again by the second paragraph of the draft problem statement "The BPF...open discussion, non-technical in nature…”
> Let’s try and see if we can indeed break out of this technical mindset and reduce the tech content to a minimum, looking at other arguments or at least place existing arguments in a non-tech context.
> In my (limited) IGF experience, I think this is a major challenge by itself as the majority of participants and stakeholders consider IPv6 to be a technical issue and any workshop touching on it always has a hard time to draw in participants and expertise from other areas. Unfortunately, looking at meeting reports and the mailing list, this group is no exception and we’re pretty much leaning on the technical community for contributions.
> This is reflected in the current draft which, with respect to all contributors, is going very much into technical areas and problems. This is no surprise, but we are moving closer and closer to duplication of work. If in addressing NAT we end up in a technical description, what we end up with are technical answers and I fear we lose a lot of potential value in the outcome document being a replication of what we already have and not being picked up by those stakeholders which matter most, the non-technical participants.
> I like the set of question, but I would suggest to be more specific in the targets and the purpose. I also feel that, given the relative short timeframe, this list might be too big and we are biting off more than the small group of active participants can handle.
> Prioritising on where the decision making process starts “outreach and awareness” should come first, but specifically how to reach out to people outside the inner circles of those who have already deployed. This should also be reflected in who we ask to contribute to this call and as such our own outreach.
> The other one I would prefer to touch is the "Incentives stimulating IPv6 uptake”, which falls straight under the working title of this forum on creating an enabling environment and again we should try and focus not only on the technical community, but address each stakeholder group and look at there respective roles in the value chain and the fact that by far all decisions on the Internet are driven by basic economics of return on investment and optimising resources to balance supply and demand in a profitable manner.
> The background document, being the introduction to these questions, in turn should reflect this and reworded to address the greater picture, avoiding a too technical focus. Which I admit will be a challenge because by large most experience and work over the last ten years was done in technical context.
> Talk to you later,
> Marco

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list