Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] v6 non-universality (was: Comments On Draft text)

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

The example is spot on illustrating how IPv6 could be used to render JAS
work mute. <political> But one doubts GAC would permit that to
happen.</political> regards.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:39 PM, <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Michele,
>
> I didn't write, nor have I read, the text you are commenting on.
>
> However, the ISPCP Constituency Comment did recognize that v6 is
> not universally available. They did not appear to offer the means
> to work around that, other than an implicit limitation that this
> question to you addresses.
>
> You wrote:
>
> > There should NOT be an IPv6 exemption for "qualified" applicants.
>
> Could you share with me your impression of the consequence of there
> being a requirement in the DAG, manditory at the point of transition
> to delegation?
>
> My impression is that if an applicant's available infrastucture is
> not v6 provisioned earlier than one year after Staff's offer to
> contract that the offer will expire.
>
> Now I could be mistaken, but this appears to limit the physical
> venue of registry backend siting to those with hard provisioning
> dates prior to 1Q14.
>
> I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but if we assume,
> just for the purposes of discussion, that some place, Nairobi
> perhaps, isn't currently scheduled by any one, let alone two,
> path independent v6 transit providers, but Cape Town is, that
> applications which propose Nairobi as an operations venue be
> either (a) determined not to be qualified for support, or (b)
> determined to be qualified for support, with the prior knowledge
> that ICANN legal staff will at a later date, approximately 1Q14,
> allow the offer to enter into contract expire?
>
> Do you propose outcome (a) or outcome (b) or is there some other
> outcome(s) which you are proposing?
>
> For comparision, an identical application proposing Cape Town
> as its operational venue, which is v6 provisioned, would both
> be currently qualified and prospectively qualified, unless for
> some reason v6 service is withdrawn by the v6 transit providers
> currently provisioning Cape Town.
>
> If you perceive anything in this question insulting or belittling
> or deliberately obscure or written for some purpose other than
> understanding what you think v6-mandatory-to-contract-at-delegation
> means in practice, please ignore this note.
>
> Eric
>