Thanks Izumi for the statement. I found the following para powerful: "We think that much has to be done by all operators and service providers of global Internet as well as by policy makers concerned to cope with these serious challenges. We are very aware that the operation of Internet and provisions of many services on top of IP connectivity are not under the direct purview of ICANN per se, however in order to minimize the potential confusion and instability for the global end users, we call for the concerted efforts by all parties including ICANN community, rather than separating the efforts and responsibilities by separate and narrow domains without horizontal coordination. " I had one query on the technical aspect - would it not be preferable, ideally to transit to a single IPv6 Internet instead of a hybrid IPv4 + IPv6 one? Is the inability to transit from IPv4 to IPv6 a result of inability to persuade entrenched institutions to pay for a complete transition to IPv6, and hence the costs of the hybrid transition will need to be borne by those who are mostly not connected today and belong to the have-nots in the digital divide, which ceteris paribus may not be a good choice (the hybrid model may impose relatively higher costs on technological developments that could have otherwise assumed a single (IPv6) network)? On a more fundamental 'policy' or 'political' level, I wonder if the lack of concerted effort at the global levels to make the required movement on the solutions suggested in the statement are a significant sign of the vacuum of global governance processes? And there seem to be atleast two fundamental issues: A. ICANN and other IG bodies do not have the will (nature of its constituencies) and or the authority to push for the technical and policy changes that are critical for the transition to IPv6 or a hybrid IPv4 + IPv6 regime. B. the lack of real legitimacy within ICANN and related bodies as the GNSO affects their ability to win support of the constituency of the information society. How can ALAC highlight both issues within and outside ICANN? To further the reform of the processes of determining ICANN constituents, democratising their participation including much larger involvement of the constituency members, relative authority of different constituencies, "ICANN + arrangements" (for e.g. through Internet Governance Forum) that have larger support of the 'Internet community' (which if defined as 'those impacted by the Internet' is entire humanity) and can bring about required policy changes for such transitions etc. Comments on these aspects may also be useful while discussing the ALAC statement on IPv4v6, since they relate to the underlying issues of which this transition may be a symptom of. Regards, Guru -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:20 PM To: ipv6-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] ALAC Draft statement on IPv4v6 Dear all, here is the draft statement on IPv4v6. All comments and suggestions are welcome. best, izumi

Izumi: it is exactly that we convine, excellent job, thank`s. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:50:02 +0900> From: iza@anr.org> To: ipv6-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] ALAC Draft statement on IPv4v6> > Dear all, here is the draft statement on IPv4v6. All comments and> suggestions are welcome.> > best,> > izumi _________________________________________________________________ ¿Aburrido? Ingresá ya y divertite como nunca en MSN Juegos. http://juegos.ar.msn.com/