Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Draft summary of public comment (second milestone report) ready for JAS WG review

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Michele,

By a requirement made in "bad faith" I ment a requirement which any possible
means to satisfy, however, uselessly, would be adequate.

So v6 over a tunnel, or reachible locally, though not necessarily from
any point except the point of attempted reachiblity, or via that old
standby -- avian transport (carrier pigeon).

Some in the WG have pointed to the non-availability of v6, by any means,
as deserving recognition, through deferral or exception. Some object to
doing so, either stating "no harm", as you appear to be doing, or in the
case of a public comment, stating "harm", if a deferral or exception is
made.

I am satisfied that your opposition to deferral or exception is made in
good faith, and assumes only that "decent transit providers" are either
globally available, or no harm caused by disqualifying applicants from
areas where no "decent transit providers" exist, now and for the next 8
fiscal quarters.

I don't share your view, or rather, I am more skeptical than you that
"decent transit providers" do, or will, exist univerally, or less
optimistic that no harm will be caused by disqualifying applicants from
areas where no "decent transit providers" exist. I am also concerned
that if ICANN's v6 requirement is to be construed as loosely as you
appear to suggest -- v6 by any means, that other ICANN requirements may
suffer the same creative interpretive consequences.

Thank you for all your comments and your evident patience.

Eric