|
My very first
contribution to this mailing list - pardon me, I am nervous :-) . I agree with suggestion that it would make more sense to improve linkages "to the OPERATOR community (e.g.NANOG)" as opposed to the end-user. I follow the discussions on this forum but admit that although technically inclined, sometimes these discussions are simply beyond me and I tend to think that the focus is so much on the needs of the developed world that hardly anything is relevant nor takes the Pacific situation into consideration. Having said that I believe if IETF were to pursue improved linkages through the OPERATOR community, in our case PACNOG - it would generally improve our knowledge on what is happening within IETF as ultimately the decisions made at this level affect everyone (end-users) using the Internet. The onus, of course, would be on us (in the pacific) to build our capacity to comprehend and actively participate in IETF processes, but I agree the operator community would be a great starting point. Lynnold M Wini Solomon Telekom Co Ltd Honiara, Solomon Islands Ole Jacobsen wrote: I think this largely depends on what is defined as an "end-user". The reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch between the stuff ICANN does and what these "end users" THINK ICANN does or should be doing. The ALAC members are largely made up of "civil society" or "political science" folks with an agenda and a strong passion for international travel -- and most of all a desire to be HEARD, no matter how irrelevant their topic is. The only thing I could suggest that would make sense in the case of the IETF would be an improved linkage to the OPERATOR community (e.g. NANOG), but I don't really think the IETF wants or needs to hear from my father, born in 1919, even if he is indeed an Internet "end-user". Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf