So, time for some real action?

[Andrew  Yourtchenko]

On 2/6/14, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 06/02/14 16:04, Dick Visser wrote:
>> I know there are different opinions on this.
>> But between black and white there are many shades of grey.
>
> Maybe. But this phrase:
>
> "If turning IPv4 off results in inability to perform our job for our
> employers, we tell them the reason and take a day off."
>
> ...does not send a good message. I would be inclined to tell the member
> of staff to get their a**e into work and stop acting like such a child.
>

Last time I checked, anyone with available days off can take them at
any time for any reason.

>
> If I understand the proposal correctly, the idea is that individuals
> will disable IPv4 for a day, on their own personal equipment or
> workstations.
>
> If so:
>
>   1. That *might* be useful, but it's unclear to me why having a "day"

That's exactly the idea. It's explicitly *NOT* to break others'
networks nor to have the innocent users suffer.

> for this is helpful; the purpose of IPv6 day #1 and #2 was to coordinate
> the enabling for people who *didn't* opt in, so that any impact would
> have an obvious cause. If an individual wants to do this, they can do it
> at any time and see the effects.

Having a defined day when others are doing the same thing makes it
easier to allocate the time for it, at least for some.

>
>   2. The wording needs to be improved, drastically. It has a very
> care-free tone to it, which is not helpful to the overall efforts.

If you are talking about the original wording on the AVAAZ - I'd be
very happy to hear better wording, feel free to unicast.

>
> IMHO effort at this point would be best directed to the large, holdout
> broadband providers in countries with low uptake (e.g. BT in the UK).
>

What would that effort consist of ?

--a