!! (fwd)


I think we can safely cut this nonsense about policy being set by
regional-techs, as the group has not attempted to do so. In fact, no
group has authority to set Internet-wide policy. Certainly not the IAB
or ISoc any more than regional-techs. Which was in fact the problem.
As there is noone being able to set policy (or at least having enough
guts to try), Scott W. had asked a group that is likely able to come
up with a sound answer (regional techs, as their butts are on the line
for at least the US part of the *operational* Internet infrastructure)
for some guidance that he can take into consideration so he can
achieve a better alignment between what he can do, and what the
operational people want. We will not find answers for Scott for
generations to come, but perhaps we can help him to make sound
decisions for the next 6-12 months, after which time things will look
quite different again anyway. If we can together cover 95% if the
cases for now, that will be progress, the rest will have to be handled
on a one-by-one basis, and fighting about "seeting policy about
casting in stone who's a provider" is just academic at best.


PS: For that matter, at the regional-techs meeting early in the week,
and totally unrelated to this discussion, the group had raised about
not wanting to set policy. Though I personally believe it ain't that
easy and many actions will have policy implications; if not today,
then setting the stage for tomorrow's.