[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Comments On Draft text

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all

I've been reading over the documents  on the wiki

As mentioned in a previous email, the section on IPv6 is, in my opinion, 
factually incorrect and also the wrong position to be taking.

I said this the first time the issue was raised and I'll say it again now - 
There should NOT be an IPv6 exemption for "qualified" applicants.

This text doesn't make any actual sense:
"One approach would be to ask the ASO to assist in arranging for  a declaration 
from  the RIRs that each of the regions the RIR and the local ISP would 
guarantee to provide IPv6 access, though an IPv4 tunnel or other means, for any 
JAS qualified applicant in its region.  this guarantees, plus an ICANN 
willingness to accept these guarantees on an application could be a solution 
for this problem that might obviate the need to waive the IPv6 requirements for 
JAS qualified applicants."

RIRs have nothing to do with "access" - it's up to each LIR to organise their 
own peering etc., and "local ISP" doesn't mean anything in this context at all. 
Do you mean transit provider? What? .The RIR only makes the IPv6 (and IPv4) 
assignments - they have nothing to do with the actual connections.

If someone wants to setup a tunnel they can do so via a tunnel broker - if they 
really want to .. 

I don't see what all this mumbo jumbo has to do with anything

>From the beginning I supported the concept behind this working group on the 
>basis that it was all about removing certain economic barriers to applicants 
>from developing countries. However it is very clear from some of the 
>discussions over the last few weeks that some people want to expand that scope 
>significantly and insist on making continual references to "capacity building" 
>in developing countries etc etc
I strongly believe this is completely out of scope.

I don't want to start a flame war on the subject, so I've been biting my tongue 
for weeks. But I do not see why some people have an issue with the concept of 
"incumbent registries" - they have tried and tested systems and can provide 
stable solutions. 

For these reasons, and others, I also cannot support either the "Registry 
Service Provider Program " or the "Capacity building - Registry Service 
Providers". 

If ICANN were to go down this route and start running registry operators (or 
funding them) then I can see a multitude of issues, not least of them being 
conflicts of interest, competition issues etc etc., But suffice to say that I 
do not believe that it is ICANN's role to get involved in this sort of activity 
- it's out of scope.

Regards

Michele


Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845