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

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

Griffini and all,

Griffini Giorgio wrote:

> 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...

  Well maybe you don't see it but you are being "Touched" by it at anyway...

>
>
> > > 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.

  Yes, And I believe I have clearly stated as to why....  Or did you miss that??

> 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.

  No I am not interested to have people who know everything, but be well
versed.  The difference is distinct and rather well understood....

>
> (Unless you already have some names ready to propose so we will have to
> accept them anyway,I think you mean)

  No, I have no one in mind at all....

>
>
> > >
> > > 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.

  This much is generally known already.  Hence I don't feel it is necessary to
belabor this point.  It could be overly simply stated though that "bad or
incompatible packet's do not make for a stable 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)

  Stability is in part directly related to privacy.  Without a expectable level
of privacy, the market place will not trust the use of the internet long, people
will be damaged in various ways, and business on the internet would be lost...
I think that sums it up in very brief!  >;)

>
>
> > >
> > > 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 ?

  I am not suggestion the IETF is wrong at all.  In fact they do a good job
in "Some" areas....  So your characterization of my meaning is misplaced.

>
>
> > > 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 !....

  Well good.  You will be a better person and participant for doing so!  >;)

>
>
> Please avoid such kind answers. They do not allow for considering
> continuing a discussion a worthy effort.

 I am sorry you took offense.  You sensitivity seems to be showing rather
strongly here.   You interpretation was of course your own, and not based
upon my intent or my couching of my statement....

>
> (Unless, of course, they are exactly intented to avoid such discussions)

  I NEVER intend to avoid these types of discussions....  Rather I
believe that encouraging them is healthy for all concerned....

>
>
> > > 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.

  Very much agreed.   And in part, my motivation for my previous comments.

>
> 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'.

  Yes very true.  But IPv6 is in implementation for production....  So this
consideration of yours is not consistent with facts or reality!  >;)

>
>
> > >  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 ?

  I don't in that sense....  So why the question?

>
>
> > >
> > > 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.

  You ar right I did not.  I will here.

  To your first question, we have supported two...

  To your second and third questions, no, I am not blaming any other candidates.
I am concerned and would like an answer to direct questions such as the one
Jim put to Alf, which is where this thread started....

>
>
> 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.

  Whom have I attacked.  No one to my knowledge.  I have expressed
a concern to a lack of and answer that seems to translate to lack of
"Clue"...  Of course you have a right to you opinion, as do others....

>
>
> 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