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

Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) glenn.deen at nbcuni.com
Tue Jul 14 10:12:26 EDT 2015


I would like to suggest that we can't entirely exclude the technical aspect in this work on IPv6 because the upgrade to IPv6 is driven by technical needs, not social policies or even trade policies, but purely technical reasons. The current number of devices have consumed  the possible IPv4 has and the technical solution is to deploy an upgraded new addressing scheme IPv6 that expands the available addresses.  Technical problem, technical solution.  That's not to say policy isn't needed here...

I completely agree with Marco that we should not repeat what is already being done in the Internet Technical Community which is defining how IPv6 works, working to add it to protocols and the code running inside devices, and adding useful features to what can be done by devices running it.    The have done the technical work of creating IPv6,  now there is need for policy focus to get it deployed and adopted.

Our group discussion is more policy oriented, yet there does remain important policy contributions to be discussed about the policies that can influence the adoption of IPv6 by the global internet network, the global user community, and the global collection of devices which connect to the Internet.

Or put another way: this is very much like an upgrade project for the Internet.  We already have an excellent technical staff that knows how to deploy the upgrade technically, what is also needed is the (1) business motivation to do the upgrade, and the (2) management, or big picture coordination,  of the upgrade process to ensure the users and the network remain happy during and after the upgrade, and the (3) support and buy in from users.   All of these aspects are influenced and supported through policy, and that's a contribution we can discuss.

Regards 
Glenn 

Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections 

On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:28 AM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org




More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list