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

[Fundiswa Nadia Maseko]

Dear Jordi,

Thank you for your response.

I think we may have reached the point where the discussion is no longer
about IPv6, but about the philosophy of Internet governance itself.

You mention that Internet number resources are "community resources" and
that policies should reflect what is good for "the community." That sounds
reasonable in principle, but I believe it deserves much closer examination
in practice.

Who exactly is "the community"?

Is it the relatively small group of individuals who consistently
participate in policy discussions, attend meetings and understand the
procedural mechanics of the PDP? Or is it the thousands of operators, ISPs,
cloud providers and enterprises that actually finance, deploy and operate
the infrastructure on which the Internet depends?

Those are not necessarily the same constituency.

One of the structural weaknesses of multistakeholder governance is the
assumption that participation automatically equals representation. In
reality, most operators are focused on running networks, serving customers
and investing in infrastructure. They do not have the time or resources to
engage continuously in governance processes. As participation narrows,
influence naturally concentrates among those who are able to remain
permanently engaged.

That does not make the process illegitimate, but it should make us cautious
about equating "community consensus" with the interests of the wider
operational community.

This is why I am concerned about using IPv6 deployment as a criterion for
IPv4 Soft Landing.

Once the registry begins determining which architectural choices are
sufficiently aligned with community objectives, we move beyond neutral
coordination and into behavioural governance.

Historically, registries existed to coordinate uniqueness and maintain
authoritative records. Today, we are discussing whether they should also
influence technology adoption strategies.

That is a significant evolution of mandate.

Rather than expanding policy into operational design, I believe this is an
opportunity to discuss reforms that strengthen the governance framework
itself.

For example:

• How do we ensure operators have meaningful portability if confidence in
an institution declines?
• Should members have clearer exit rights so governance remains genuinely
voluntary rather than structurally captive?
• How do we ensure neutrality when registries are simultaneously
coordinating resources and promoting preferred deployment outcomes?
• Should governance evolve to give greater weight to those with long-term
operational and economic exposure, alongside those who participate
regularly in policy forums?

These questions become increasingly important as Internet number resources
mature from purely technical identifiers into economically significant
infrastructure.

My concern is therefore not whether IPv6 is valuable. It clearly is.

My concern is whether IPv4 policy should become the mechanism through which
registries influence protocol adoption, or whether our focus should instead
be on ensuring governance remains neutral, accountable and resilient enough
to accommodate different operational realities.

Perhaps that is the broader discussion we should be having.

Kind regards,

Fundiswa Nadia Maseko

"Neutral coordination earns trust. Trust should never depend on
institutional preference."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/af4feafe/attachment.html>