[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 59, Issue 35

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Tue Jun 1 23:39:49 EDT 2010


Just wanted to mention that I was called to a meeting today by my
Government's Ministry relating to v4 to v6 transition and Internet
exchanges. It became obvious that this was as a direct result of a visit
from John Curran to a closed public sector meeting here in the Caribbean.

Our Honorable Minister was obviously impressed with the outreach work by
ARIN, to have called a stakeholders meeting so quickly after the briefing.
His own team was fired up and anxious to know what they should be doing
internally in the wake of runout.

It was also good to know that my conversations with the said Minister over
the last two years received support.Although I observed that our main
network provider sat on the fence to some degree when asked what their plans
were with reference to v4/v6 transition.

I offered the following view:

*Government agencies should provide IPv6-enabled content and services,
encourage IPv6 deployment in their countries, and purchase IPv6-compliant
hardware and software.*

**Users and Govs alike should request IPv6 services from their ISPs and IT
vendors.*

So Govs, needs to do a little homework on their *content and services
platforms* and *hardware and software*....In my estimation this is not about
pulling teeth.

Most, if not all software and software manufacturers will tell you, if
asked, where you are compliant and where you are not compliant. Then you you
install the fixes, and or provision for the procurement of compliant
hardware/software where you need to.

Then you an proclaim that you are "IPv6 ready"  or at least decide that you
want to be v6 compliant within a certain timescale and so detail a programme
for doing so with some kind of budget. Once you have done the analysis of
what you have and  whats in the pipeline, you can make a good guess as to
budget requirements...It could very well be mostly time related costs.

You can also take this up with the Regional Management Office if there are
plans in the pipeline for OECS wide content and hardware/software platforms.
I am sure that Mr xxxx has a view on this.

All Your providers (eg xxxx) should also be made aware that your *"policy"* is
to be IPv6 compliant and request a time scale from them as to when they will
offer "FULL IPv6 services" on their networks to their corporate and Gov.
customers.

The reality is that the adoption of v6 has been plagued with a wait and see
attitude within the big networks industry.

Of course, it is not in your interest to say: We will become compliant when
our providers start offering "FULL IPv6 network services because they will
likely be time phasing this in, and you can move towards compliance even if
your network providers are not quite there yet.

This way also, your technical staff will get a basic understanding of the V4
verses v6 addressing system which is never a bad thing.

I hope the above will assist you.


Ref: ICT advisory forum/ Civil society

RD



> Bill,
>
> Let me clarify: I think ARIN's informative outreach programs are
> satisfactory. The people you want to reach are by and large receiving
> your information. In fact, I think your information is reaching more
> or less everyone who is interested.
>
> It's the participatory outreach that is falling flat with the AC's
> collective behavior as the proximate cause. You're doing a poor job of
> drawing people into the process and you're unnecessarily frustrating,
> even driving away the ones who are already here.
>
> That's why my comments speak to enabling and encouraging participation
> by the folks you've already reached but don't speak to reaching wider
> audiences. I'm interested in fixing the part that's actually broken.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> > William, (as different from me)
> >
> > Your earlier emails talked about broader participation.? I thought you
> meant
> > more than those that currently review policy proposal.
> > Everything below talks to the process of evaluating, not a broader group
> of
> > eyes.
> >
> > bd
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > Conceptually the answer seems obvious enough: when all the informative
> > efforts finally convince someone to step up and attempt to
> > participate, DON'T SHUT THEM DOWN.
> >
> > As a member of the AC, some specific things you can personally do
> > towards that end include:
> >
> > 1. Remove evaluation of a policy's worth from the decision to accept a
> > proposal as a draft policy. Focus on whether the proposal describes
> > "actionable" policy, not whether the action is a good one. Focus on
> > helping the author revise it into actionable policy if it isn't
> > already and then accept it as a draft policy. After accepting it as a
> > draft, try to help the author revise it into the closest thing to
> > passable policy possible while still preserving the proposal's intent.
> >
> > Let the wide community evaluate the proposal's worth. The AC can add
> > it's two cents when and if the draft garners the consensus to move to
> > last call.
> >
> > Members of the AC can add their two cents any time. But hold the group
> > recommendation until after the whole community has spoken.
> >
> >
> > 2. Let the proposal's author (or authors if proposals get merged)
> > guide the AC's changes, at least to the extent of not making changes
> > where the author advises that, "No, that goes against what the
> > proposal is trying to accomplish." The PDP gives the AC the authority
> > to revise draft policy. It doesn't tell you how you have to use that
> > authority. You have the leeway to use it in a way that includes the
> > author instead of excluding him.
> >
> > Of course, you actually have to accept the proposal as a draft policy
> > first. This idea of "we reject you but please try again" is
> > exclusionary BS and there's no amount of informative outreach that's
> > going to make it anything other than BS. If you want to "soften" a
> > rejection, don't issue it in the first place.
> >
> > One of the architects of Ultima Online famously said, "We want to
> > minimize the down side of being dead." What a stupid idea! You only
> > need to minimize the down side of being dead if you've unbalanced the
> > game against the players.
> >
> >
> > 3. Delay proposing policy. Post a PPML message saying, "We're thinking
> > about policy which does X. What do y'all think? Would anyone like to
> > take a stab at policy text?" and then wait until any discussion dies
> > out without anyone else proposing a policy before an AC member does.
> >
> > I hate the idea of #3. In the IRPEP model it wasn't necessary and
> > surely AC members are well qualified to write good policy proposals.
> > But in the PDP's structure, when an AC member jumps on top of a new
> > policy idea, it tends to drive the public out of the formative process
> > right away, reducing them to mere commenters on the AC's policy
> > instead of partners in the policy's creation.
> >
> > ICANN has public comment. Even the FCC has public comment on its
> > rulemaking. Do those organizations have any meaningful public
> > participation in their rulemaking? Hell no. Do you really want ARIN to
> > become the IP address version of the FCC?
> >
> >
> > Fundamentally, though, this is a process problem. The PDP enables and
> > encourages a decision making process that solicits public comment but
> > doesn't really solicit public participation, especially for the AC
> > members whose natural tendency is to work behind the scenes. Unlike
> > the IRPEP, which had some annoying surface problems, I think the PDP
> > is broken at the core.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> > --
> > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
> > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 08:12:00 -0400
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - May 2010
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTimXtFNX4BhxcDTT20lmo-a_c0n4n2hTmoOrksq6 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > In this circumstance, given the number of different inputs to the process
> > and the ambiguity of much of the input received, it is not always as
> > easy as you might think for the AC to determine consensus, but, yes,
> > usually it is.
>
> Owen,
>
> If you're not sure whether you have consensus then you don't. It only
> gets complicated when you really want there to be consensus even
> though there isn't.
>
>
> >> The PDP is quite clear that the AC is charged with determining consensus
> of
> >> the community. In my experience, it is relatively easy to determine if
> >> consensus exists. Achieving consensus may be monumentally difficult and
> time
> >> consuming but the determination of its existence is straightforward.
> >>
> >> As I understand the PDP, the AC is charged with the simpler task.
> >
> > The AC is charged with determining several things, consensus being
> > but one of them.
>
> The AC is also effectively charged with making an independent
> recommendation to the board as to whether a policy proposal would
> improve ARIN. For any given proposal, it get's three chances to do
> this within the process, only the first of which also functions to
> discourage public participation.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 59, Issue 35
> *****************************************
>



-- 
Rudi Daniel
ICT4Dev consulting
1784 497 8676
Http://csisvg.ning.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100601/03d068db/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list