http://wcitleaks.org is publishing contributions (ITU-speak for discussion papers, agenda items, etc) which are likely to be discussed at the ITR meeting in December. According to http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Russia%2040.pdf, Russia wants the ITU to effectively become an RIR and allocate IPv6 addresses. See item 8 at the bottom of page 3 of their list of changes to the ITR Articles. Looks like someone's been drinking the Nav6 Kool- Aid. Sigh. Will the NCC as a Sector Member, (and the other RIRs?) submit a response to this? Should concerned members of this WG be contacting their governments?
contribution 40 from March 2011 is well known and it is a key base for all speculations but nothing was done - even requested wording But there are more even more dangerous contributions - I recommend to read full lists of them On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
http://wcitleaks.org is publishing contributions (ITU-speak for discussion papers, agenda items, etc) which are likely to be discussed at the ITR meeting in December.
According to http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Russia%2040.pdf, Russia wants the ITU to effectively become an RIR and allocate IPv6 addresses. See item 8 at the bottom of page 3 of their list of changes to the ITR Articles. Looks like someone's been drinking the Nav6 Kool-Aid. Sigh.
Will the NCC as a Sector Member, (and the other RIRs?) submit a response to this? Should concerned members of this WG be contacting their governments?
On 3 Aug 2012, at 09:49, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
But there are more even more dangerous contributions - I recommend to read full lists of them
Hi Dima. For those of us who are too busy or (like me, too lazy) to read them all, could you please point us at the more dangerous ones? The contributions are not organised in a way which makes is easy to browse or search them.
As I am still on the run - I can answer at this moment only using abbreviations and without links - among key problems are CLI reqs, CPP principles and OTT issues which also were raised. It could be dangerous when Internet services or Internet termination service are included in definition of international telecommunications services. But it is like double-side sword - any actions against e2e can be identified as illegal and follow to trade sanctions. More detailed about was mentioned in excellent publications of Jeff in IPJ and through ISOC and also were raised by Patrick Sent from my iPhone On 03.08.2012, at 13:18, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 3 Aug 2012, at 09:49, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
But there are more even more dangerous contributions - I recommend to read full lists of them
Hi Dima. For those of us who are too busy or (like me, too lazy) to read them all, could you please point us at the more dangerous ones? The contributions are not organised in a way which makes is easy to browse or search them.
Hi Jim, On 3 Aug 2012, at 02:18, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 3 Aug 2012, at 09:49, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
But there are more even more dangerous contributions - I recommend to read full lists of them
Hi Dima. For those of us who are too busy or (like me, too lazy) to read them all, could you please point us at the more dangerous ones? The contributions are not organised in a way which makes is easy to browse or search them.
This may be of interest: https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/WCIT%20issues%20matrix/WCI... Mat
Please, only don't miss the key point that there are more about money and strategical position on the future markets Sent from my iPhone On 03.08.2012, at 19:56, Matthew Ford <ford@isoc.org> wrote:
Hi Jim,
On 3 Aug 2012, at 02:18, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 3 Aug 2012, at 09:49, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
But there are more even more dangerous contributions - I recommend to read full lists of them
Hi Dima. For those of us who are too busy or (like me, too lazy) to read them all, could you please point us at the more dangerous ones? The contributions are not organised in a way which makes is easy to browse or search them.
This may be of interest:
https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/WCIT%20issues%20matrix/WCI...
Mat
On 3 Aug 2012, at 16:56, Matthew Ford wrote:
This may be of interest:
https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/WCIT%20issues%20matrix/WCI...
Thanks Mat.
it is useful - what I mentioned before was also raised in my short talk(not discussion) with Kramer and Verveer today and practically in the same wording as I mentioned before - the potential problems are a definition Internet as international telco services and as consequencies - CPP -CLI - OTT USG guys accents more on definition and CPP - but recognized importance last ones On Aug 6, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 3 Aug 2012, at 16:56, Matthew Ford wrote:
This may be of interest:
https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/WCIT%20issues%20matrix/WCI...
Thanks Mat.
3 aug 2012 kl. 10:18 skrev Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>:
http://wcitleaks.org is publishing contributions (ITU-speak for discussion papers, agenda items, etc) which are likely to be discussed at the ITR meeting in December.
According to http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Russia%2040.pdf, Russia wants the ITU to effectively become an RIR and allocate IPv6 addresses. See item 8 at the bottom of page 3 of their list of changes to the ITR Articles. Looks like someone's been drinking the Nav6 Kool-Aid. Sigh.
Yes, it is coming back over and over again.
Will the NCC as a Sector Member, (and the other RIRs?) submit a response to this?
I hope so.
Should concerned members of this WG be contacting their governments?
Yes, I think they should. Patrik
On 8/3/12 12:18 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
Will the NCC as a Sector Member, (and the other RIRs?) submit a response to this? Should concerned members of this WG be contacting their governments?
Hi Jim, The RIPE NCC has been following the WCIT process, and is aware of the proposed language regarding IPv6 coming from Russia. As Dmitry has noted, we have not seen any significant support for the Russian proposals "to oblige ITU to allocate/distribute some part of IPv6 addresses", nor has there been much follow-up from the Russians themselves since the proposal was made (without specific language) in April 2011. As noted on this list in July this year, we were encouraged to see the ITU IPv6 Group conclude its work with the consensus opinion that "current IPv6 allocation policies and processes met the needs of stakeholders" and that ITU work in this area should focus on capacity building activities. Of course, this does not put this issue to rest but is a positive step. The RIPE NCC has also been working to inform all stakeholders about capacity building activities being undertaken by the RIPE NCC and RIPE community. These activities are summarised in ripe-557: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-557/ This RIPE doc has been created from a version that was submitted to the the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Committee for ITU Policy (ComITU), at their request, ahead of their meeting next month. The RIPE NCC will be attending the upcoming CEPT event in September and it will be made clear that the RIPE NCC and RIPE community will be available to provide any information, facts and figures. We are also in contact with many regulatory authorities in the Middle East part of our region about these issues. As you note, Jim, this sort of engagement by the RIPE NCC, on behalf of the community, is most effective if backed up by operators and industry members speaking directly to their own governments and public officials so I would definitely encourage RIPE NCC and RIPE community members to do so. I see that Matt Ford has provided a link to the WSIS Issues Matrix produced by ISOC that provides an excellent overview. Again, the link is: https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/WCIT%20issues%20matrix/WCI... I hope this provides some useful information, and am happy to answer any further questions you may have on this list. Cheers, Paul
On 17 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Paul Rendek wrote:
I hope this provides some useful information, and am happy to answer any further questions you may have on this list.
It does Paul: very helpful. Thanks very much. Hopefully there will be some time in the WG agenda at RIPE65 to discuss ITR matters and how best to respond to these.
On 17 aug 2012, at 13:55, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Paul Rendek wrote:
I hope this provides some useful information, and am happy to answer any further questions you may have on this list.
It does Paul: very helpful. Thanks very much.
Hopefully there will be some time in the WG agenda at RIPE65 to discuss ITR matters and how best to respond to these.
Yes, we chairs did talk about this with Paul and Chris, and our conclusion/plan for WCIT is the following (comments welcome of course): 1. There will be a session in the plenary on the Tuesday on WCIT. All details not finished for it. This is due to be not have done all of my home work, so no shadow over the committee that have planned the session. 2. We will have followup questions and deeper discussions during say 40-50% of the coop wg session where we can discuss more with each other on how we can move forward. So, we hope that as many as possible interested in these WCIT issues can go to _both_. At least enough so that we can connect the two sessions, although one is on Tuesday and the other on Thursday. Patrik
On 17 Aug 2012, at 13:24, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Yes, we chairs did talk about this with Paul and Chris, and our conclusion/plan for WCIT is the following (comments welcome of course):
1. There will be a session in the plenary on the Tuesday on WCIT. All details not finished for it. This is due to be not have done all of my home work, so no shadow over the committee that have planned the session.
2. We will have followup questions and deeper discussions during say 40-50% of the coop wg session where we can discuss more with each other on how we can move forward.
So, we hope that as many as possible interested in these WCIT issues can go to _both_. At least enough so that we can connect the two sessions, although one is on Tuesday and the other on Thursday.
Cool! Thanks Patrik. And everyone else who has been working on this.
participants (7)
-
Burkov Dmitry -
Dmitry Burkov -
Dmitry Burkov
-
Jim Reid -
Matthew Ford -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Rendek