[Chapter-delegates] [REPORT] ITU IPv6 Group meeting, 15-16 March 2010

[S.M.Raza]

Dear Bill,

Thanks for sharing & enlightening.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org> wrote:

> Following is a report on last week's ITU IPv6 Group meeting.  I
> particularly want to thank those of you who reached out to your contacts in
> national governments to talk about this issue and to share the briefing
> paper I sent to you on 1 March.  I heard from several delegates that they
> had read the paper and had appreciated it.  This is a great example of how
> ISOC's membership can effectively work to advance the health of the Internet
> and to strengthen awareness of the Internet ecosystem.
>
> best regards
>
> Bill
>
> ============================
>
> REPORT: ITU IPv6 Group meeting
>
> Geneva, February 15-16, 2010
>
> The ITU convened the first meeting of the Council-chartered IPv6 Group in
> Geneva, co-chaired by the Directors of the Telecommunication Standardization
> and Telecommunication Development Bureaus.  The meeting was chaired by Dr.
> Mohammed El-Khamis of the United Arab Emirates, and was attended by about 20
> Member States and an equivalent number of Sector Members and invited
> experts.  The latter group included the RIRs and the authors of two studies
> commissioned by the ITU: Dr. Milton Mueller and Dr. Sureswaran Ramadass.
>  For ISOC, Bill Graham and Constance Bommelaer, Leslie Daigle and Mat Ford
> attended.  In addition, all five Regional Internet Registry CEOs and four
> RIR staff attended the meeting.  Three ICANN staff were available to attend,
> but ICANN had not been invited as experts, and after some discussion,
> attendees decided not to let them join this meeting.  This decision will be
> revisted for future meetings.  No civil society organizations were present.
>
> As you will recall, ISOC SGE prepared a briefing note for membership that
> was distributed in advance of the meeting, along with information about how
> interested members could reach out to government delegates to explain to
> them the ISOC view of the items on the meeting agenda.  Those were:
>
> -  To draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large IPv6
> block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing countries,
> as outlined in paragraph 23 of C09/29.
>
> -  To further study possible methodologies and related implementation
> mechanisms to ensure ‘equitable access’ to IPv6 resource by countries.
>
> -  To further study the possibility for ITU to become another Internet
> Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to manage a reserved
> IPv6 block.
>
> -  To further study the feasibility and advisability of implementing the
> CIR [Country Internet Registry] model for those countries who would request
> national allocations.
>
> -  To assist in the implementation of the project called for by Resolution
> 64, taking into account the needs at regional and national level in terms of
> capacity building and allocation policies.
>
> -  To report to ITU Council 2010 [13-22 April, 2010].
>
> During the ICANN meeting and in Geneva before the meeting, it was really
> encouraging to hear from several members that they had used the material to
> brief their governments.  Equally encouraging, I heard from several
> governments that they had received the ISOC briefing from various sources,
> and that they had found it useful in their own preparations.  Those reports
> speak strongly for the willingness and ability of our membership to inform
> their national governments about ISOC’s positions and the importance of the
> Internet model and maintaining support for the Internet ecosystem when they
> are well informed about an issue and are provided with briefing material to
> help them.  That is a real strength of ISOC and should be developed further
> in future.
>
> The meeting itself was successful from the perspective of effectively
> defending and even promoting the legitimacy of the existing Internet
> organizations, particularly the Regional Internet Registries.  All Member
> States that spoke except one supported the existing institutions and tried
> to confine discussions of the ITU role to things it can do within its
> mandate.  The strong and focused interventions by the Internet technical
> community were helpful and informative.  The RIR group repeatedly provided
> detailed technical and organizational information to inform the debate.
>  ISOC interventions were supportive of the Internet ecosystem, and
> concentrated on a higher level message, pointing out that issues about
> Internet address allocation and policies should be discussed in the
> appropriate existing forums.  Those were well received by the governments
> and private sector representatives.
>
> Despite incorrect and misleading statements by one delegate about the
> nature and influence of IP addresses and addressing policy, the Chair of the
> meeting remained scrupulously neutral and fair, and guided the meeting to a
> reasonable conclusion.  The meeting ended by creating two “correspondence
> groups” to continue the discussion before its next meeting, beginning
> September 1, 2010.  The first correspondence group is to start developing an
> ITU Development Sector project to do capacity building to help developing
> countries to implement IPv6 deployment, including studies of the costs and
> mechanisms associated with the project.  The second correspondence group is
> assigned to identify specific cases where member states have identified a
> problem obtaining IPv6 addresses, and to study ways of dealing with those
> problems within the existing system.  The draft report recognizes that
> efforts to include ongoing study of the Country Internet Registry proposal
> from the NAV6 document, or of the rules for ITU to become some kind of
> global Internet Registry would be premature, in spite of some efforts to
> have the correspondence group focus on evaluating the viability of that
> proposal.
>
> The meeting was successful for ISOC, because it gave us opportunities to
> explain both the existing system and why the ITU is the wrong place to be
> talking about Internet addressing.  But the meeting was nonetheless a
> discussion about core Internet matters that took place in an organization
> that hasn't demonstrated why it should have any special status or role in
> address allocation or addressing policy (although ITU could certainly help
> its Member States by undertaking capacity building activities).  Overall,
> the discussion in Geneva definitely seemed to be trending toward
> continuation of the ITU IPv6 Group, reinforcing this by inviting (read:
> expecting) continued participation by representatives of the Internet
> technical community, rather than following ISOC’s suggestion that it would
> be better to take the discussion to the relevant forums instead.
>
> I believe that ISOC will need to carefully consider next steps.  That
> consideration will have to include detailed internal discussions, as well as
> discussions with the RIRs and ICANN (which will be invited to the September
> meeting).  At this time it does not seem that this ITU process can be
> ignored, but as an organization we should continue to recommend that
> discussions about Internet address allocation and related policy be held in
> the appropriate Internet organizations.
>
> Questions or comments to Bill Graham (graham at isoc.org)
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>



-- 

Best regards,

S.M.Raza.

+92(0)300-8202938
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100323/58c90710/attachment.htm>