On 5/25/18 11:07 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > 3) It’s unacceptable for the ITU to even attempt to get involved in IP > addressing. It’s out of scope. They should stick to co-ordination of E.164 > numbers and X.25 addresses. IP addressing is primarily a matter for the RIRs. > And other Internet-related fora like RIPE, NANOG, IETF, etc. There’s no role > for the ITU in this at all.
hi, about ITU's role, maybe it's worth reading this paper: RESOLUTION 101 (REV. BUSAN, 2014), Internet Protocol-based networks https://www.itu.int/en/action/internet/Documents/Resolution_101_pp14.pdf in that doc it's recalled that: 'the WSIS+10 High-Level Event (Geneva, 2014), in its Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS Vision Beyond 2015, determined that one of the priority areas to be addressed by the Post-2015 Development Agenda must be: "Encouraging the full deployment of IPv6 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the addressing space, including in light of future developments in the Internet of Things";' and resolves to: 'explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and relevant organizations [Including, but not limited to, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the regional Internet registries (RIRs), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Society (ISOC) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), on the basis of reciprocity.] involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future Internet, through cooperation agreements, as appropriate, in order to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance so as to ensure maximum benefits to the global community.' so, ITU is just following what the plenipotentiary conference (that is governments, mainly) decided in south korea four years ago. i'd prefer to continue stressing the technical aspects of Y.Pv6RefModel, instead of complaining about ITU's relevance in the topic. thank you -- antonio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
