[Bp_ipv6] A review of the discussion to date on the Problem Definition

Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates
Wed Jun 3 13:22:56 EDT 2015

Greetings, all,

I'm looking forward to the call this evening (my evening, that is). Thanks
to everyone for the great discussion over the past two weeks.

In reviewing the discussion to date, and based upon contributions received,
I've added edits to the *Scope and Goals
I have also started a document for the *Problem Definition

[On an administrative note, is everyone okay with using Google Docs as a
platform for collaborative drafting?]

If you're joining the call from a laptop/desktop, I was thinking that it
would be good to have these documents open; I'd like to take notes/make
edits in real time during the call.

You will have seen the agenda that Izumi circulated. The focus of our
upcoming discussion will be on the Problem Definition and the Scope and
Goals document.

Below, individual comments.

@Glenn, thanks for parsing the different stages of adoption into three
parts. I think this is helpful and, to the extent we can, it would be nice
if we could describe best practices for all three. That is one way to frame
part of the paper. What does everyone think about this idea? I've added
this framing to the draft *Problem Definition* outline.

@Matthew, thanks for distinguishing between listing the benefits/reasons
for adopting IPv6 from describing the policy practices that work or do not
work for adopting IPv6. I've added this point to the "Purpose" section of
the *Scope and Goals*.

@Miwa, thanks for sharing information on APNIC's stakeholder-specific work
in this area. I have added the Government messaging to the draft outline of
the *Problem Definition.*

[As a side note, to all, I was wondering whether "Problem Definition" is
the best phrase for this document? I see it as eventually being the
introductory chapter of the outcome document - more like an
Introduction/Background/Preface. Something to discuss on the call.]

I think it would be nice to have stakeholder-specific messaging for all
groups, as Izumi illustrated. This is something we can address in the paper
itself as more examples come in - another framing question. I've also
emphasized the need for the BPF to compliment and not duplicate the work
being done in this area by RIRs, etc. Please let me know Miwa if I've
captured your concerns adequately.

@Izumi, thanks for your helpful framing of the *Problem Definition* outline.
I've added the introduction language you've quoted into the draft. I have
also added the "motivational factors" and, conceptually, separated them
into aspirational or positive motivations, and "negative" motivations, or,
otherwise put - the urgency reasons. It would be great to know if this
framing sits well with everyone, or if we need to change it.

@Sanjaya Pursuant to your email I've added a section in the *Scope and
Goals* for "Target Audience" and have listed "Governments, Policymakers,
and Business (CxO)."

@Miwa, Nathalie - I've sent your references to Carl at the IGF Secretariat
so that they can be uploaded to the dedicated webpage
at intgovforum.org.

To all, please have a look at the two documents and do share your thoughts
and views. Thanks all in advance for your consideration.


Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150603/c2202b1e/attachment.html>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list