| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :: back :: |
| Conclusions - LACNIC VII |
| Minutes of the Meeting of the IPv6 Task Force for Latin America and the Caribbean |
San Jose, Costa Rica, October 27, 2004
Moderators: Marcelo Bagnulo, Christian Lazo
Agenda and presentations at: http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/lacnicvii/talleres-y-foros/
|
|
Minutes
|
|
Presentation by the Secretariat
|
Marcelo Bagnulo.
As has already been discussed in the mailing list, the secretariat will be under the charge of LACNIC for a period of two years. After this period, if necessary, it will be reconfirmed or transferred. Are there any comments on LACNIC's secretariat?
Raúl Echeberría.
I would like to comment on what motivates us to assume this role. We simply want to have the attitude of contributing to the movement that is trying to promote the adoption of IPv6, which in our region is advancing at a slower pace than in other regions. Our interest is to provide support, without assuming a leading role, simply to see the consolidation of IPv6 deployment. If eventually this group has the logistic capability of assuming charge, the secretariat will be transferred without any problems; meanwhile, we can carry out these tasks for as long as it is necessary.
|
|
Presentation by the Editing Committee.
|
Marcelo Bagnulo.
We should add Pablo Allietti to this committee. Basically, this group has offered to work on the TF initial document and also on future documents.
Members of the Editing Committee
Glauber Coelho
Netzahualcoyotl Ornelas García
Raúl Echeberría
Christian Lazo
Harold de Dios
Azael Fernández
Marcelo Bagnulo
|
|
Discussion of the TF document
|
Marcelo Bagnulo.
I suppose that you are all familiar with this document and that you have already studied it. This document was last modified in September, 2004. I would like to give special thanks to Pablo Allietti, who has actively worked on this document. The first thing that comes up is the purpose of the TF. There was much discussion about this on the mailing list, and the results we have obtained are more or less reasonable.
Description of the TF document by Marcelo Bagnulo.
http://lac.ipv6tf.org/documento.html
Jordi Palet.
In reference to the constitution of the Task Force, having members from different countries. The experience of the European Task Force and the national European Task Forces shows that not everybody participates in all the meetings that are scheduled. We must have individuals who will attend the meetings, seek consensus on the mailing list and during personal meetings, particularly in view of the fact that this work is voluntary.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
Then what is the role of the coordinating committee?
Jordi Palet.
Meetings are open. In Europe everybody can participate, but, at the moment of making decisions, somebody must represent the national TFs. By forcing national TFs to speak among themselves and reach consensus, the level of consensus that is obtained at a regional level is therefore more reasonable.
Raúl Echeberría.
I believe the idea of the coordinating committee is fine, but that it would better fit the TF at a different moment. I have been thinking about the current functioning of the TF mailing list, where I notice a certain lack of leadership, a lack a work plan containing 3 or 4 feasible items. At least during this stage, we should name a coordinating committee, a small steering committee made up of 6 or 7 persons, some of them representatives of organizations that may play a key role in the success of the Task Force such as for example LACNIC or CLARA. This group could be in charge of a clear mission within six months, preparing brochures, having a quick guideline as to how to reach the IPv6 community in Latin America.
Jordi Palet.
I think that's perfect. Within this large-scale committee there could be a smaller, executive committee made up by relevant individuals from the region. I don't think that it is right that a network such as CLARA has been set up and they do not have IPv6. CLARA should be integrated within this committee.I think that's perfect. Within this large-scale committee there could be a smaller, executive committee made up by relevant individuals from the region. I don't think that it is right that a network such as CLARA has been set up and they do not have IPv6. CLARA should be integrated within this committee.
Christian Lazo.
In relation to Jordi's comment about CLARA. It's true that today CLARA does not have IPv6 in operation, but it has presented a proposal before LACNIC and it is already being processed.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
As I understand it, Raul has presented a proposal for an executive committee or a steering committee, whichever way you wish to call it, suggesting that this committee should be small and that it should lead the work of the TF. Are there any comments on this?
Germán Valdez.
How will this committee be formed? LACNIC is an example of the work of a steering committee where a group of organizations that are highly involved in the issue became organized in order to take on the executive tasks of constituting the registry. Something similar could be done with the TF.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
The idea of forming the executive committee before the coordinating committee appears to be more efficient. We could expect the executive committee to do some work before the next LACNIC meeting. This is ambitious, but by then we could have clearer guidelines for future actions.
Erick Iriarte.
Waiting until the next LACNIC meeting, which is scheduled for June, 2005, is waiting too long. We shouldn't wait so long.
Hartmut Glaser.
In reference to the matter of having national representatives within the coordinating committee that is currently proposed. There must exist some body to review this. I am speaking in view of the very delicate context that exists in my country, where there is the risk of being captured. There must exist mechanisms to prevent this committee from being controlled or captured by someone, and this is why there must exist a body that will endorse the representation of a country's government or industry.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
What would be the proposal as to how to verify this.?
Hartmut Glaser.
Perhaps the steering committee itself could analyze all the prosals from the representatives that adhere to the TF.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
In this sense the steering committee would assume a more important role, the role of analyzing these proposals.
Germán Valdez.
We would have to see the type of tasks that would be carried out by this committee, assess the initial tasks. If we wish to have results for the next LACNIC meeting, we will have to define more concrete tasks, although they may be few, in order to have results that impact the TF.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
The idea expressed by Raul is that somebody must begin doing something.
Raúl Echeberría.
I think that many people do not understand the matter we are discussing. This discussion is about how we can create a TF that has the role of promoting and lobbying for the adoption of IPv6 in Latin America. But how do we want to go about this? What should we do first? The important thing is to have a small group of persons that can sit down and prepare a work plan with concrete objectives and continue working on the list, make this community grow, and later we'll see, we will probably end up with an assembly similar to this one. Therefore, we must identify a small group of individuals that are the most representative of these issues within our region.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
So the idea would be, first of all, to identify the groups or individuals that would make up this steering committee in order to get things started. Then we would make a summons on the TF list. Do we agree that this is a reasonable procedure to achieve this? If so, we will do it. This must be reflected in an explanatory TF document.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
The question of the secretariat is solved for the following two years: it will be under the charge of LACNIC. Are there any comments on the explanatory document? We have suggestions from Hartmmut and Raul. Are there any other suggestions?
Germán Valdez.
At some point in time somebody will have to assume this role of moderator. Would this function be carried out by someone from the steering committee? How would the moderator be elected? This should be explained in the document.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
He/She is chosen by the assembly, but a procedure must be established for the election as we currently have no such procedure. The explanatory document would have to include something about this and about the initial moderator. I assume the responsibility of preparing a summary of the discussions generated during this meeting and of sending it to the list.
|
|
Upcoming Activities
|
Marcelo Bagnulo.
This is something that the steering committee may attend to in first instance in relation to the future activities of this TF.
Jordi Palet.
I sent an e-mail to the mailing list recommending concrete actions. A first step would be to establish a concrete objective and work towards its fulfillment. One of the activities I recommended was holding an IPv6 meeting at Latin American level, perhaps in one year or a year and a half. I could help secure the presence of representatives from the industry. This is an event that must have a high impact, bringing together individuals who are relevant in the area of IPv6. Another objective was the strategic infrastructure of the Internet, such as for example NAP and ccTLD, and making sure that these organizations are ready for IPv6. These activities can have a high level of impact.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
I think this is a good idea. It would be taking FLIP-6 to a higher scale.
Jordi Palet.
This model may work for the region. We would have to analyze where we should focus the discussions of event in Latin America.
Pablo Allietti.
We need to add more information to the site: what is being done, where to find information on IPv6, presentations, events. Spreading information about the fundamentals of IPv6.
Germán Valdez.
LACNIC offers all the logistic facilities for holding the Latin American IPv6 event. We could start by scheduling a meeting in the medium term. We offer the facilities to schedule it jointly with LACNIC. We can broaden the FLIP-6 agenda at LACNIC, you can count on our full support for this effort. But this IPv6 event for Latin America must be held within the area of FLIP-6 which is more oriented towards the objective of this type of meetings.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
We have some proposals, Some of them can be assigned to the steering committee and serve as a starting point. The first step would be to define this committee. Are there any other ideas on future activities?
Christian Lazo.
A practical session within the framework of the tutorials might be very helpful for understanding and adopting the protocol.
|
|
Open Microphone
|
Raúl Echeberría.
Could you please give us the instructions for subscribing to the TF mailing list?
|
|
Marcelo Bagnulo provides the instructions.
|
Marcelo Bagnulo.
Fernando Morales sent the e-mail that Jordi had sent to the TF mailing list with the recommendations for concrete activities.
Jordi Palet.
It is important to identify the conditions for adoption of IPv6 in each country. This is helpful for sharing experiences. The status and results of national TFs. To try to find infrastructures for the adoption of IPv6. Press is also important.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
This e-mail containing suggestions is very good and it would be one of the inputs received by the steering committee.
Ricardo Patara.
We have analyzed CLARA's IPv6 application and we are open to the idea of studying it jointly with CLARA in order to help them receive IPv6.
Christian Lazo.
A long term proposal that I suggest is that the TF webpage should include links to the organizations that are working on IPv6 issue in Latin America. Through the mailing list we could request these links so that they can be grouped.
Raúl Echeberría.
The TF and FLIP-6 have different objectives. The TF's objective is of a more political nature, more related to spreading information, while FLIP-6's objective is more related to sharing technical experiences. In time they will have to be separated.
Erick Iriarte.
The TF should also be involved in implementation and research issues, so as to take advantage of the group's synergy. How will it be able to affect government policies? This is not clear in the explanatory document.
Jordi Palet.
The document talks about promoting the adoption of IPv6. In my opinion, this includes implementation and research. Today we do not need any more research on IPv6 except in relation to very specific matters; IPv6 is ready for deployment. As to examples of its adoption, we can mention countries such as Japan. The most important task of the TF is to help the deployment and adoption of IPv6.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
This was discussed extensively on the mailing list. I think it would be a good idea for Erick to send a proposal in this sense to the TF's mailing list. Another thing I wish to highlight is the fact that the objective was written so as to include the broadest possible items.
Marcelo Bagnulo.
Extremely important comments and suggestions have been presented. I will send the results of this TF meeting to the TF mailing list.
|
| |
| :: back :: |
|
|
|
|
