[At-Large] ALAC Draft statement on IPv4v6

[Guru]

Thanks Izumi for the statement. I found the following para powerful:

"We think that much has to be done by all operators and service providers of
global Internet as well as by policy makers concerned to cope with these
serious challenges. We are very aware that the operation of Internet and
provisions of many services on top of IP connectivity are not under the
direct purview of ICANN per se, however in order to minimize the potential
confusion and instability for the global end users, we call for the
concerted efforts by all parties including ICANN community, rather than
separating the efforts and responsibilities by separate and narrow domains
without horizontal coordination. " 

I had one query on the technical aspect - would it not be preferable,
ideally to transit to a single IPv6 Internet instead of a hybrid IPv4 + IPv6
one? Is the inability to transit from IPv4 to IPv6 a result of inability to
persuade entrenched institutions to pay for a complete transition to IPv6,
and hence the costs of the hybrid transition will need to be borne by those
who are mostly not connected today and belong to the have-nots in the
digital divide, which ceteris paribus may not be a good choice (the hybrid
model may impose relatively higher costs on technological developments that
could have otherwise assumed a single (IPv6) network)? 

On a more fundamental 'policy' or 'political' level, I wonder if the lack of
concerted effort at the global levels to make the required movement on the
solutions suggested in the statement are a significant sign of the vacuum of
global governance processes? And there seem to be atleast two fundamental
issues: 

A. ICANN and other IG bodies do not have the will (nature of its
constituencies) and or the authority to push for the technical and policy
changes that are critical for the transition to IPv6 or a hybrid IPv4 + IPv6
regime. 
B. the lack of real legitimacy within ICANN and related bodies as the GNSO
affects their ability to win support of the constituency of the information
society.

How can ALAC highlight both issues within and outside ICANN? To further the
reform of the processes of determining ICANN constituents, democratising
their participation including much larger involvement of the constituency
members, relative authority of different constituencies, "ICANN +
arrangements" (for e.g. through Internet Governance Forum) that have larger
support of the  'Internet community' (which if defined as 'those impacted by
the Internet' is entire humanity) and can bring about required policy
changes for such transitions etc. 

Comments on these aspects may also be useful while discussing the ALAC
statement on IPv4v6, since they relate to the underlying issues of which
this transition may be a symptom of.

Regards,
Guru

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:20 PM
To: ipv6-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide
Subject: [At-Large] ALAC Draft statement on IPv4v6

Dear all, here is the draft statement on IPv4v6. All comments and
suggestions are welcome.

best,

izumi