Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
owen at delong.com
Tue Nov 8 22:44:48 UTC 2016
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 09:41 , Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 5:04 PM, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>> This proposal was submitted in February and went through long series
>> discussions and to the face to face so how can Mr. Delong say, "very
>> little support"? Shall we replay the archives or open the game again?
> if you think it helps, please do.
>> I refer to the cochairs.
>> I have been part of the discussions in the past and active at face to
>> face, so how can you affirm that.
>> If I am forced to say it again, I support, the reservation for the
>> critical infrastructure, for new comers, the strategic reserve, the
>> ipv6 requirement and so the proposal.
> I oppose.
> I don't oppose any reservation for ccTDLs, gTLDs, roots.
> I think IXPs are taken care of......? ;-)
To be clear, I have supported reservations for ccTLDs, traditional gTLDs, roots, and IXPs.
I oppose making the Make ICANN Rich Fast gTLDs being created since 2015 being included in such reservations. These gTLDs were created after IPv4 runout.
> That's all critical of the infrastructure (or did i forget anything?) ?
I think you’ve got it.
> Ambivalent about newcomers.
Willing to accept some limited amount for this, but generally prefer not.
> I oppose a strategic reserve.
> [did they have gold bars on the Titanic?]
LOL… Very well put, Frank.
Arnaud, you misquoted me. I did not say “very little support” by itself.
I said “very little support on this list”.
In that context, I stand by my statement. I do not know how much support it may or may not have
received in the room, but I remain opposed to it and note that it has not received significant
support on this list as I stated.
More information about the RPD