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

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

On 5 Aug 2011, at 14:40, <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:

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

Eric

Ok .. I just wouldn't choose to term such a requirement as "bad faith" .. 
"weak", "pointless" etc., are all terms that I might use, but "bad faith" to me 
has certain connotations of an almost criminal nature.

> 
> 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).

While the avian transport RFC might be good for a giggle, there is absolutely 
nothing wrong with using a tunnel. If your v4 connection is stable there's no 
reason why you can't have a stable v6 connection - even if it is "only" via a 
tunnel (for whatever reason)

> 
> Some in the WG have pointed to the non-availability of v6, by any means,
> as deserving recognition, through deferral or exception.

I assume you mean "native IPv6"


> 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.

Don't confuse the location of an applicant with the location they choose to 
host their backend.


> 
> 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.

If that is an issue then it should have been raised in the context of the DAG's 
drafting.

However, in the case of IPv6, for example, market forces will eventually come 
into play. 

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
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845