Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Comments On Draft text

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Mr.Neylon,

As the party guilty for the 'mumbo jumbo,' let me try to respond

The idea was that since we were _not_ asking for the IPv6 to be lifted,
but were recognizing it availability as a barrier for most probably JAS 
applicants,

Then there was a problem that needed to be solved if we wanted to help those 
applicants.

I think this was in scope, but of course the co-chairs are the arbiters of 
that..

After first writing this, I was informed that the RIRs, would do nothing to 
provide v6 access, because they did not see that as their job.
I mistakenly thought they might help, since this was a difficult 
techno-political condition being applied on their behalf.
So yes, that needs to be fixed.  I will remove any mention of RIRs from the 
text.

On the other hand, JAS qualified applicants in regions where there is not IPv6 
access, still will need such access.

So I talked to a few members of the ISP Constituency in the GNSO and gathered 
that there might be a willingness for some ISPS who had IPv6 to help - by 
providing tunnels etc.

But, even if this is possible, this is not a capability that these JAS 
qualified applicants would have at application time. 

So here I was asking that:

a.  there be a statement of willingness from ISPs (tunnel brokers as well 
perhaps) that they would provide such service as an in kind service to JAS 
qualified applicants.
b. that ICANN state that it was willing to accept such a promise of assistance 
as a sufficient answer to the technical question asking about IPv6 capability.

Again I repeat, in no way was this proposal a way to get an exception to the 
IPv6 requirements* but rather an approach to a way this might be met in the 
majority of the world whether there is no IPv6 capability.

I hope this explains what the mumbo jumbo refers to.

thank you 

a.

*  no matter how much some of us may think requiring IPv6 for all new 
Registries is an unreasonable requirement, we recognize this is a staff/Board 
directive that there is no appeal for.


On 2 Aug 2011, at 11:36, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:

> 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