[LAC-TF] De interes... Me extrañaba que no hubieran aparecido ruidos como este

[Arturo Servin]

	Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the difference between name-policies and number-policies in ICANN is that the latter are not discussed directly in ICANN, They are discussed in the corresponding RIRs in a bottom up process and treated as regional policies. The exception is Global Policies that are reviewed and ratified by the ASO and the ICANN board .

	So, I imagine that is why you got that answer.

	May be a better answer should have been: "This is a number policy matter, I suggest you to go and talk with the ASO to discuss (perhaps to follow a global policy) it and work with your RIR in producing new policies to deal with this particular whois issue".

	My 20 cents.

Regards,
as

On 27 Jun 2012, at 07:20, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Sorry, resending due to mispelling of the name. Is Thomas Narten, not Tom Anders. My apologies.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Dear people,
> 
> This afternoon here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN should do about the FBI & DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and protocols.
> 
> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute silence of the board on this issue.
> 
> Just to let you know.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 06/24/2012 09:47 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 06/18/2012 03:07 PM, Jorge Villa wrote:
>>> Sin embargo, el sabado aparece publicado este artuculo titulado "FBI,
>>> DEA warn IPv6 could shield criminals from police"
>>> (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj),
>>> donde se anuncia (que por medio de leyes en USA y Canada) se intentara
>>> clarificar los esquemas de direcciones para obtener "trazabilidad" en la
>>> comunicacion.
>> 
>> Por lo que entendi del articulo (mirandolo muy por arriba, y rápido), el
>> problema tiene que ver con como se espera que whois se use con IPv6, mas
>> que con algo intrinseco de IPv6.
>> 
>> 
>>> Esto significa que a corto/mediano plazo seran removidas
>>> las extensiones de privacidad de IPv6 o algun otro mecanismo (como el
>>> que emplea Microsoft)?
>> 
>> No, en absoluto.
>> 
>> 
>>> El debate se ira a mover hacia el despliegue masivo de IPSEC?
>> 
>> Menos que menos! :-)
>> 
>> 
>>> Este anuncio es curioso, porque tanto el FBI como DEA han tenido que
>>> estar involucradas en el despliegue de IPv6, como parte de las politicas
>>> que al respecto ha trazado el gobierno norteamericano;
>> 
>> A veces las politicas son papelerio que no necesariamente se refleja en,
>> por ejemplo, una despliegue racional de una tecnología.
>> 
>> Saludos,
> _______________________________________________
> LACTF mailing list
> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LACTF mailing list
> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf