[lir-wg] ICANN Reform

At 10:42 AM 10/8/2002, Randy Bush wrote:
>  o political changes with icann were not discussed anywhere except
>    in plenary, and were done as presentations by the 'powers', not
>    formative open discussion.

I can only speak for Rhodos: As you may recall I tried to open
the discussion by asking some quite inconvenient questions to
Rob. But if the people there do not want to discuss what can 
one do. Maybe having a more BOF like setting would be good.
Any bright ideas?


>  o things such as golden v6 allocations for anything 'important'
>    were discussed in a wg, voted (with almost no representation by
>    folk who run routers, i.e. will pay the costs), and done with
>    long laundry lists of ideas for who might deserve golden
>    prefixes, and all were approved.  it was a childish land grab.


Sorry I am not aware of the issue. What worries me is that I cannot
find a reference to what you talk about in the minutes of either
the IPv6 DB or this WG. This is bad. Can you point me there?

Maybe the lack of stable discussion here is a result of the perceived
lack of currnet operational importance of IPv6. In other words: 
Noone really cares (yet). This creates room for all sorts of
ideas and little checks and balances.

[Myh personal opinion about golden prefixes: 
When I still took part in address policy discussions 
I have made it quite clear that all the RIRs should
do is provide a *registry* of prefixes declared special 
by *anyone* asking. The most a policy about this should do
is to create categories of self-declared specialness, e.g.
"dns-root-server", "dns-cctld-server", "address-whois-server",
"www-search-engine", "isp-home-page", .... .
Those rinning routers could then decide to use this registry
and which categories or entries they would treat specially.]

Daniel