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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Griffini and all,

Griffini Giorgio wrote:

> 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.

  I as well am somewhat "Icy" on IPv6 partly in preference to IPv8.  But
that is a technical preference mostly.  However I am a bit confused by
by your comment of what is too much in advance with respect to Ipv6.
It has been in development for almost 8 years now...

> 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.

  Both as Jim's question directly indicated are interrelated.  That should be
obvious by the way in which Jim couched his original question...  I guess
Alf and now you missed that...  Unfortunate.  It clearly shows an even
deeper lack of understanding of the lack of qualification and the ability
of others to adequately evaluate that qualification.....  This hole for Alf
is getting deeper...

>
> 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.

  The reason is or should be obvious and as I stated in my previous response,
based on "Clue" of the candidate.

>
> This may prove Alf  is/is not well suited for discussing techie questions but
> cannot tell nothing about fulfilling the director role.

  Again many, including myself respectfully but strongly disagree.  Any
Director, of which I myself am one for my company, should have a
very in depth understanding of the technical aspects for when seeking
such a elected position where technical aspects are central to the
stability of the internet....  So I find your view, or defense of Alf's
lack of any answer, and therefore "Clue" perhaps, rather obvious
and frankly, disappointing and disparaging....

>
> 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 IETF has shown itself somewhat restricted or restrained due to
several well publicized and documented reasons.  It's usefulness is still
there but increasingly limited to private industry research effort....

>
>
> > >
> > > 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.

  Well IPv6 is a real world problem in several aspects, so get busy.  >;)

>
>
> [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.

  True, but it predominantly does...

> And any
> not sound technical solutions will prove itself on the field that it will not be
> appropriate for the role.

  This is poor scientific method and if adopted as an approach from
any "Director" request/requirnment in any form could prove to be
at least temporarily devastating to many stakeholders...

>  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.

  It would seem true that you are not indeed.  And in that the primary mission
and requirement of ICANN is technical with respect to maintaining the stability
or improving stability for the internet, your opinion would be in contrast with
the precepts of the White Paper and reason....

>
> This is why I was just telling that such kind question may not be a
> reasonable 'discriminating factor' in selecting a director.

  Indeed???  Very interesting....

>
>
> >
> >   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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208