[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 8, 2016, at 09:41 , Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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.

Owen