Re: WCIT outcome?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 31 December 2012 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5C521F859D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:50:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.655
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JynWTrMc-xCh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 53A6D21F8539 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 25211 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2012 11:49:52 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 31 Dec 2012 11:49:52 -0000
Message-ID: <50E17B9B.5030404@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:48:43 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjzjLc2-=4EdxwHOi21B3dOBUohYc5hhXZHL_Pk+iBBmQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:50:14 -0000

SM wrote:

> What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very 
> different matter.  An individual may have principles (or beliefs).  A 
> stakeholder has interests.  There was an individual who mentioned on an 
> IETF mailing list that he/she disagreed with his/her company's stance.  
> It's unlikely that a stakeholder would say that.

That's how the global routing table has bloated so much because
of requests from ISPs as stakeholders even though it is harmful
to not only end users but also ISPs, which is "fallacy of
composition".

ITU did it better for phone numbers.

						Masataka Ohta