[Chapter-delegates] Concerns about India's IPv6 Strategy.

Thu Jan 19 12:19:34 PST 2012

Hello Ted,

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Ted Mooney <mooney at isoc.org> wrote:

> Siva, Eric and all chapter Delegates,
>
> There are chapter tools available on the "How to work effectively with your
> government", developed by our Policy Department.  It does occur to me,
> however, that there is more here to be done.  These are big policy issues
> with broad implications, culminating quickly at year's end. I thought of a
> few questions has I pondered how to assist.
>

The tools developed by the Policy Department provide a good start. However
the receptiveness of Parliamentarians and Government Administrators differ
from country to country. I have interacted with Senior Officials of the
Ministry of Information Technology in India, more during ICANN and IGF
meetings than here in India, and the senior officers are approachable, but
beyond a point, there are some limitations.

We could have had better involvement in India's internet Policy process,
but one of the constraints is that the Chapter does not have funds to
support the participation of policy events which happen mostly in New
Delhi. A case in point is our inability to offer full or partial support to
a committed IPv6 expert and a member of a Chapter to take part in APRICOT,
New Delhi. (I heard that all the recipients of the APRICOT fellowship are
from neigbouring countries)

There are several other events in the past in Delhi and other cities where
the Chapter should have been present and ought to have made its presence
felt. It is quite possibly unintended, but ISOC Global participation in
India on a few earlier occasions could have embraced Chapters, but it did
not happen that way. Chapter Leaders could have been asked to join the ISOC
team when it participated in the ITU event in Hyderabad or in a few other
events in Delhi. I have talked about this before. Perhaps it is just a fine
point missed by ISOC Global. The tone of my reference to this point is
positive and well meant, my purpose here is not to find fault.

The idea expressed here is that ISOC Global could send positive signals to
the policy makers in the local environment that ISOC works through
Chapters. Such positive signals would result in greater receptiveness by
the Governments where the Chapters are located.

India Chennai Chapter has so far taken shape as a Chapter of individual
users without an overwhelming presence of Government officers and without
the overwhelming presence of a single business corporation or single
business sector. Our Chapter has no affiliations to Government or Business
and there is relatively a high degree of independence as on date, which
gives us the unique position of freedom to express. But we need plenty of
support from ISOC Global with attention to the unspoken nuances of the
situation.

> How can chapters mobilize the citizenry to influence policy makers? What
> does it take to leverage communal disappointment, even outrage and turn it
> into influence? How can chapters conduct outreach and mobilization to tap
> into the needs and sentiments of civil society so there is understanding
> and
> a need to act? It is your activities that can and do make a difference.
>

We at the Chapters could indeed reach out to the people, but in tune with
the ISOC Chapter culture, we will be gentle, smooth and balanced in our
community involvement. Chapter participation with the Community on adverse
policy issues would be more in the nature of non-passionate education and
negotiative opposition across the table (as opposed to militant protests).
With such a gentle approach we would like to do a lot more reach out to the
local technical communities and general public, possibly with the help of
media. Help us to be of use to the Internet.

> I welcome YOUR IDEAS how ISOC Chapter Support can contribute to your
> individual and group efforts for your outreach and impact.
>

Thank you.

Sivasubramanian M.

>
> Ted
>
> Ted Mooney
> Sr. Director - Membership & Services
> The Internet Society
> www.isoc.org
>
> Direct Line: 703.439.2774
> Cell:           301.980.6446
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
> [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Eric
> Burger
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:14 PM
> To: Sivasubramanian M
> Cc: Chapter Delegates
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Concerns about India's IPv6 Strategy.
>
> Has anyone pointed out that India might need more addresses than their
> contiguous allocation would offer them? I.e., is it worth doing an
> educational campaign in country to let the populace know their government
> want to limit economic growth and hold India back compared to other regions
> in the world by capping the number of internet addresses available to
> India?
>
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>
> > I followed the discussion on APNIC's Policy Mailing List, and the Indian
> officials defending the proposal demonstrated an extremely poor
> understanding of basic routing and BGP.
> >
> > Whether they were misled by their lack of understanding of how the
> Internet works, or whether they have a hidden agenda, I couldn't say.
> >
> > Is there any way we can help you SM ?
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> As we move towards worldwide IPv6 launch, it becomes important to pay
> attention to some developments that threaten to drastically alter the way
> IPv6 resources will be deployed.
> >>
> >> India is pursuing a proposal - "it is not a proposal for India, it is a
> proposal from India" to seek allocation of contiguous IPv6 address block
> from APNIC countrywise. At APNIC, Busan, India proposed that large,
> contiguous blocks be allotted, country-wise, to all countries in the
> Region.
>
> >>
> >> In an unpublished letter to the editor of "The Hindu" I wrote and later
> posted in the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus List:
> >>
> >> It is difficult to see this as anything other than a move to control the
> Internet by an anachronistic proposal to nationalize the allocation of
> Internet address space. The idea of 'country-wide' and  'contiguous'
> allocation together with the implied idea of 'All IPv6 addresses ONLY
> through the National Internet Registry',  would result in the unintended(?)
> outcome of reducing the Internet from being a free, open and universal
> medium to a Government controlled communication platform defined by
> national
> boundaries.
> >>
> >> ( In his response to the discussion in the IGC list, Paul Wilson
> confirmed that an Indian NIR is in formation and Nixi has received
> in-principle approval from APNIC. He clarified that the NIR does not have
> exclusivity within its country or economy and that NIXI has agreed to abide
> by this policy. He confirmed that the proposal for IPv6 allocations to
> individual countries is under discussion .
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100 )
> >>
> >> It is likely that this is another proposal that is a reflection of wrong
> inputs to the policy makers. The ISPs do not require any form of Government
> help in the process of obtaining address blocks from the Regional Internet
> Registry [a National Internet Registry is not really required]. They need
> to
> be free, and continue with the status quo of uncomplicated processes in
> obtaining address blocks. With the relatively unlimited IPv6 space, the RIR
> processes could actually become a lot less complicated.
> >>
> >> Static IPv4 addresses have been expensive for the end-user in India,
> hope
> this will not be case with IPv6 address, on the present model of RIR - ISP
> relationship, free of Government mediation. With continued freedom, could
> we
> hope that the ISPs in India make it an automatic process for the end-users
> to obtain static IPv6 user blocks for connecting their computers and other
> devices, without bundling IP addresses with expensive bandwidth
> subscription
> plans?
> >>
> >> (Earlier on India's proposal for theNational Internet Registry, I sent
> comments from Internet Society India Chennai on December 1, 2009 to the
> Executive Secretary of APNIC.
>
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2009/12/msg00001.h
> tml The PDF file as sent is attached)
> >>
> >> The transcripts of the Policy Discussion on the proposal 'from' India
> (for countrywise allocation of IPv6 addresses to every country) at the
> Busan
> Session is at page :
> http://meetings.apnic.net/32/program/policy/transcript#session 3
> >>
> >> Naveen Karaparambil Lakshman of our Chapter draws attention to the
> following comment during the session by Dmitri Burkov at the Busan Session.
> >>
> >> Dmitri Burkov: I have a lot of concerns about these proposals but I
> don't
> want to repeat all the arguments against.  I want to point out only one
> issue. I was really surprised at these ideas to use IP addresses for the
> personal identifications of citizens. If you want to do this, I say you
> don't need just /64 because you fill all the paper. First of all, I think
> it's improper usage in the wrong direction.  Thank you.
> >>
> >> While we move closer to worldwide IPv6 Launch, these developments in the
> Asia Pacific Region requires attention. This proposal would come up again
> at
> APRICOT 2012 to be held during 21 February - March 2, in the Nixi turf, so
> there is a definite likelihood of a proposal like this voted in.
> >>
> >> I may not attend this meeting. I am posting this in the list for
> discussion on these concerns. If these concerns are valid, I would request
> community members to pay attention to the developments on this, and
> participate in the Delhi meeting in person or by Internet
> >>
> >> http://www.apricot2012.net/participation
> >>
> >>
> >> Sivasubramanian M
> >> ISOC India Chennai
> >> http://isocindiachennai.org
> >>
> >>
> >> facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG
> >> LinkedIn:  goo.gl/eUt7s
> >> Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a
> >> http://internetstudio.in/
> >>
> >> <Internet Society India Chennai comments on the application from NIxi to
> form a National Internet Registry in
> India.pdf>_______________________________________________
> >> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> >> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chapter-delegates mailing list
> > Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120120/ac1f5a99/attachment.htm>