Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN Q&A Forum

["Griffini Giorgio" <grunz@tin.it>]

Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > I'm not here to defend Alf Hansen but if you talk about the supposed 'non-
> > answering' to question (1) of Jim Fleming I'm not sure this is a real concern.
> > Or better, it is a concern that also applies to IPv4 but no one raised this fact
> > to such a level of concern.
> 
>  I must differ with you that this concern was raised with IPv4 and corrected.
> It can also be corrected with IPv6 as well.  As a participating member
> of the discussion and WG on IPv6 for some time now, I can attest to this.
> The IPv6 e-mail list archives document this clearly some months back...
> Please review thoroughly...
> 
Frankly speaking , I'm a little bit 'icy' on IPv6 (like many real word techies out
 there) because I'm used to go deeper on a topic exactly when needed and 
not too much in advance. On my side I think that shortage of IP addresses it 
is a concern for sure but there are others who may even be more critical for 
the Internet stability and currently I'm thinking that is the 'domain name 
system issue'  the problem to approach first.
BTW I'm pretty sure that any technical concern have a reasonble time frame 
to show up to its criticality if is targeted by an IETF 'standard' so I just do not 
understand why Jim placed such quite deep tech question to a people who is 
targeted to deal with higher level issues.
This may prove Alf  is/is not well suited for discussing techie questions but 
cannot tell nothing about fulfilling the director role.  
Please refrain to tell me that one to seat such role must be aware of any 
possible technical aspect. There is a structure who is supposed to do this 
otherwise we will not need IETF anymore.

> >
> > The use of hardware ID (MAC address) is a technical need to reach the end-
> > point and it is currently used in DHCP, ARP/RARP and any other protocols
> > (in IPv4 too) who need to identify and separate any single corresponding
> > interface. The privacy issue _may_ be a concern but it is limited to more
> > limited domain of end-points (the LAN segment usually) because it is usually
> > an additional burden to reflect the true hardware ID in each routing device.
> 
>   This is only part of the problem.  Please again review the relevant
> FACTS on the IPv6 archives...
> 
As already told, I will look deeper at IPv6 when I will feel it will worth for my 
technical knowledge for my day to day job (and this will also include to 
review early discussions about a final choice) 
But until that moment (that will be not so far in future) please let me cope 
with real world problems first.

[snip]
(discussing such <snipped> answers will require more effort than I'm allowed 
to place here for now)

> > We may discuss many alternative ways to solve such technical problem
> > here but I think it is almost not a so appropriate place if we want this issue
> > solved. Isn't it ?
> 
>   Agreed.  But none the less the question to which Jim posed was avoided
> in a manner that was politically correct but also a obvious avoidance due
> to lack of clue on Alf's part.  That is unfortunate and frankly, not a good
> sign for a candidate.  So therefore it needed to be pointed out, which I
> did....  Hence, we seem to have candidates that are not really qualified
> for the positions to which they aspire to have, and that would be very
> bad for the stability of the internet, wouldn't it?  >;)

The stability of Internet doesn't depends only on technical matters. And any 
not sound technical solutions will prove itself on the field that it will not be 
appropriate for the role.  Jim may point out anything he likes to but IMHO (in 
my humble opinion) I'm not sure there is so such need for a people who 
knows 'all deeper technical aspects' for fulfill the role of BoD director.
This is why I was just telling that such kind question may not be a 
reasonable 'discriminating factor' in selecting a director. 

> 
>   Thank you for your attempt to do some damage control for Alf,
> however this attempt, although laudable, was poorly done...

In the very 'six' first word I placed in the answer I was telling I was not here to
defend Alf Hansen positions. I simply saw a question barely related to a 
director duty and related knowledge required for such role.
I may admit that it was hazardous to talk about IPv6 by myself but I did it 
mutuating the IPv4 experience I have, considering it would be natural have 
issues on IPv6 solved to almost the same extent like IPv4.
Anyway, considering that many people talks about things thay do not even 
barely knows I dont think I have so much lowered the average.

> Maybe next time...????

If I will find appropriate for myself to make an intervention I will do and I 
usually do not care who is and who is not involved. 
This seems also your way to do comments here. Isn't it? 
So why blaming at me ?

BTW: If you think there are no good candidates for the role why you or your 
organization not proposed and/or supported some? 
Being backed by such large organisation you will have a seat for sure. 
So why blaming at other candidates ?

Best regards 
Giorgio Griffini