Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the v6 requirement

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

It was "made into an "issue"" because the point was trying to help those in 
areas that are less likely to have IPv6 and who meet the need-qualifaictions to 
get tunneling support to meet this requirement if it was a reasonable 
requirement.  And if it is not a reasonable requirement, then perhaps we should 
try for an exemption from the requirement, or for an equivalent substitution, 
for the needs-qualified applicant.

But as you have made me face the fact that this is an unreasonable 
qualification for all applicants and thus a abarier to all by a select few, 
then perhaps a two track solution is required:

- 1 not this group to have this barrier to all but a few applicants removed 
from the AG.
- 2 assuming that as in most requests for repair of the AG it will be ignored, 
help people who are needs-qualified cope with this unreasonable requirement.

This group, in its formation accepted that many of the rules are unreasonable 
and that it was a duty, as originally declared by the GAC, for ICANN to help 
those from developing economies overcome those unreasonable requirements.  This 
WG and Karla, seem to be the only ones engaged in trying to meet that duty, and 
hence all of those problems that would block someone from the developing 
economies from participating  are made into issues.  Yes, it would be better to 
have a reasonable and fair deployment scenario for all applicants, but that is 
perhaps more than we can hope for and beyond our charter, so this group must do 
what it can because there is nobody else.

a.

Note: People have been telling me IPv4 will disappear real soon now for 20 
years now.  I will believe it when I see it.


On 23 Dec 2010, at 13:52, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:

> Avri
> 
> If someone wants to run a registry properly they are going to have to provide 
> a redundant system for dns and a lot more besides. If they can't do this 100% 
> in their own country they will have to use services overseas (which is quite 
> normal anyway - most cctld registries use 3rd parties overseas to handle dns 
> at some level).
> I don't see why this is being made into an "issue"
> IPv4 is going to be exhausted very very soon. IPv6 unfortunately isn't 
> available to everyone everywhere regardless of region. (I can only think of a 
> handful of ISPs offering it to their users in Europe)
> 
> So I don't see the ipv6 "issue" as really being of special significance for 
> this group
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele
> 
> Mr. Michele Neylon
> Blacknight
> http://Blacknight.tel
> 
> Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
> 
> On 23 Dec 2010, at 18:20, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 Dec 2010, at 12:56, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
>> 
>>> All LIRs that have v6 assignments have absolutely huge ones. I don't see 
>>> why having ipv6 is a problem for anyone. If it is then they've got other 
>>> more serious issues to deal with
>> 
>> 
>> Are you making a claim that in all development areas, IPv6 is available and 
>> running and no one should have any trouble establishing full IPv6 
>> connectivity from anywhere in the world that someone wants to start a full 
>> service registry?
>> 
>> Or are you arguing that because there are enough IPv6 addresses whether 
>> their ISP support V6 or not, that is good enough.
>> 
>> Or is this an argument that they just use RSPs in developed areas and quit 
>> messing about trying to enter the game themselves.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>