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

[jordi.palet at consulintel.es]

Community is the global humanity, anyone interested in the Internet resources, which have been standardized by IETF and has delegated to IANA and the RIRs its management based on the standards.

It has been clearly defined, I don’t think there is any doubt on that. Anyone interested can participate. Note that due to the global nature of Internet, any mismanagement of the resources affects all the rest of the Internet.

Everyone is able to participate on the PDP, not just in AFRINIC, but in all the other regions as well. It is an open and transparent process and that participation is designed in such a way that the global good is the top priority, not any specific individual or business. This is the same concept as when we do standards in IETF. We do that as individuals, not as companies and is not a voting, just to make sure that all the positions are well balanced, having the top priority of global good.

“don’t have the time” is always a good excuse. You manage your time. If a person or a business is not happy with something, it should get involved. Just barking is not the way.

You keep talking about portability, but you don’t explain that, so I’m unable to respond to that properly to your questions about that.

Saludos,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 7 jul 2026, a las 10:25, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> 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." 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/b24f035f/attachment.html>