[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Summarizing the v6 comments and mail

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Collegues,

To summarize comments on the v6 deferral or exemption recommendation in
MR2, we've comments of the form "v6 is available where v4 is available",
and comments of the form "v6 is known not to be available where v4 is
available", all of which urge that the recommendation be withdrawn.

The commentors are all either currently v6 provisioned, or provide v6
provisioning.

No comment of either form, advocating withdrawing the recommendation, has
been offered by a commentor who is not currently v6 provisioned.

I suggest that the working group retian the deferral or exemption
recommendation in the Final Report.

I thank Michele Neylon for making the better case offered for the view
that deferral or exemption is unnecessary, and in the proposal for an
shared applicant RSP capabilitiy -- which I recognize Michele also does
not currently support as a recommendation -- I thought it likely that 
each instance of the shared registry services platform would likely be in a
location with adequate shared infrastructure.

I recognize however that an applicant seeking, for good local reasons,
to site a registry in an area with v4, but no v6 provisioning, risks
that the means the applicant relies upon in Q12012 to realize in Q12013
to Q12014 their offer to comply with the requirement may not meet one or
more reasonable interpretations of the requirement, current or at those
future dates.

I think this remains an area of significant risk for applicants that
"roll their own, where they are", if their local region is not currently
served by two or more prefix announcing transit providers.

Eric