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

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Alex,

This could come down to John Jeffries or others on staff legal deciding
in one to two years that demonstrating v6 reachibility is at the staff's
convenience, and it is convenient for staff to provisionally defer the
v6 metric box check until the quarter after "Nairobi Telecom" announces
v6 provisioning to Nairobi.

I personally have faith in the reasonableness, and good will, of staff,
and their capability to recognize an impossible, or cost in excess of
benefit requirement, and adjusting accordingly.

I simply don't know what the advocates of unconditional v6 mean when
they advocate it. It would be a lot clearer if they'd just say that
they prefer that registries not be located where infrastructure needs
improvement, and then we could have a rational discussion of what
"critical" means, is a registry's global reachibility critical, or is
its reachibility where it intends to serve critical, and just how
"critical" is "critical", which incidently, the RySG and the IPC and
its voting block have managed to convince staff should be higher than
for existing contracts, .com in particular.

I have to say that some discussion of the subject has been particularly
presumptive that competency can be determined by address availability.

Eric