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

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

Jeff WIlliams wrote:
> > 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...
> 
And I'm still not really touched in my day to day job... 

> > 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...
> 
Any one may build up an opinion on how much other people are qualified to 
fulfill a role and any way of doing this is to be respected. I was asking why 
such question was so determining in having such opinion built. I understand 
that your concern is to have people who knows all and everything and I'm 
pretty sure you will devote much of your time in finding such kind of persons. 
(Unless you already have some names ready to propose so we will have to 
accept them anyway,I think you mean)

> >
> > 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....
> 

To continue such discussion (with me, almost) you are required to convince 
me that a 'semantic meaning' applied to any kind value in any kind field of a 
network packet has a _real_ influence on _technical_ stability of the Internet. 
(That is, looking from your supposed side, why if the hardware ID allows to 
track down to a specified individual or not this may endanger the 'technical' 
stability of the Internet in a way , we say,  that it will prevents protocols and 
interoperability from working)

> >
> > 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....
> 

If you even think also IETF is wrong, aren't you taking a longer path for having 
this corrected by pushing your opposing opinions here ? 

> > 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.  >;)
> 

Oooh... Many thanks.... I was unaware.... I will devote almost all my free and 
busy time for this... If even I had such advice in advance !....

Please avoid such kind answers. They do not allow for considering 
continuing a discussion a worthy effort.
(Unless, of course, they are exactly intented to avoid such discussions)

> > 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...
> 
You are allowed to think so, but I think you underestimate the 'field' value. 
The 'field'  give more credibility to any 'spoken-only' opinion despite on how 
much such opinion is being believed wrong or whatever. 
Anyway, there are different approaches on 'field' test and seems you think 
that such kind 'tests' cannot be made without 'devastating' stakeholders.
I will not try to convince you on this. I don't feel such 'mission'. 

> >  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....
> 
I'm not a nominated candidate so why you care about ?

> >
> > 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

I see you did not attempt to answer any of my questions so I think I will have 
difficulties in continuing to discuss in such scenario because I would like to 
discuss to a people able to put himself under discussion. 

BTW. I think it is a real pity to see all such time and energy devoted to 
tarnish / attack any people instead of maybe properly devote such kind 
energies to build up a different position and have it supported by consensus. 
I know I have to live with such kind positions but I think it is any way a waste 
of energies.

Best regards
Giorgio Griffini