[rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01

[Nia Petronella]

Dear Jordi and colleagues,

Thank you for your detailed contribution. Your examples clearly demonstrate
that, with the right planning, expertise and organisational commitment,
IPv6 deployment can progress rapidly. Those operational experiences are
undoubtedly valuable and should continue to be shared across the community.

However, I find myself asking a broader policy question.

What is the primary objective of an IPv4 Soft Landing policy?

Is it to manage the fair and efficient allocation of remaining IPv4
resources, or is it to encourage the deployment of IPv6?

While both are important, I believe they are distinct policy objectives and
may require different policy instruments.

If IPv6 deployment becomes a prerequisite for IPv4 eligibility, could that
unintentionally shift the role of Soft Landing from resource management to
influencing network strategy?

One of the enduring strengths of the Internet has been that operators
retain the flexibility to choose technologies based on their own
operational realities, customer needs and commercial priorities. That
flexibility has enabled innovation across networks with very different
business models and levels of maturity.

>From that perspective, I wonder whether this discussion presents an
opportunity to consider broader governance reforms instead of additional
deployment criteria.

For example:

- Should policies place greater emphasis on portability so that operators
retain confidence in the continuity of their Internet number resources?
- Should exit rights be recognised as an important governance safeguard,
allowing operators meaningful alternatives if institutional confidence is
weakened?
- Should registry policy focus on reducing unnecessary administrative
discretion while strengthening predictability and legal certainty?
- As Internet number resources continue to grow in economic importance,
should governance evolve to reinforce operator autonomy rather than
introduce additional conditions tied to technology choices?

Jordi, I would genuinely value your opinion on this.

Do you see portability and exit rights as governance principles that
deserve greater attention within the RIR policy framework, particularly as
the Internet ecosystem becomes more decentralised and commercially diverse?

It seems to me that governance reforms which strengthen neutrality,
continuity and operator choice would benefit both IPv4 and IPv6 communities
alike, regardless of where each operator is on its deployment journey.


Kind regards,

Nonhlanhla

"Strong governance is built on portability, neutrality and choice."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/d72ae894/attachment.html>