My very first contribution to this mailing list - pardon me, I am
nervous :-) .
I agree with suggestion that it would make more sense to improve
linkages "to the OPERATOR community (e.g.NANOG)" as opposed to the end-user.
I follow the discussions on this forum but admit that although
technically inclined, sometimes these discussions are simply beyond me
and I tend to think that the focus is so much on the needs of the
developed world that hardly anything is relevant nor takes the Pacific
situation into consideration.
Having said that I believe if IETF were to pursue improved linkages
through the OPERATOR community, in our case PACNOG - it would generally
improve our knowledge on what is happening within IETF as ultimately the
decisions made at this level affect everyone (end-users) using the Internet.
The onus, of course, would be on us (in the pacific) to build our
capacity to comprehend and actively participate in IETF processes, but I
agree the operator community would be a great starting point.
Lynnold M Wini
Solomon Telekom Co Ltd
Honiara,
Solomon Islands
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I think this largely depends on what is defined as an "end-user". The
reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch
between the stuff ICANN does and what these "end users" THINK ICANN
does or should be doing.
The ALAC members are largely made up of "civil society" or "political
science" folks with an agenda and a strong passion for international
travel -- and most of all a desire to be HEARD, no matter how
irrelevant their topic is.
The only thing I could suggest that would make sense in the case of
the IETF would be an improved linkage to the OPERATOR community (e.g.
NANOG), but I don't really think the IETF wants or needs to hear from
my father, born in 1919, even if he is indeed an Internet "end-user".
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind
it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do
any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount
of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf