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

[Fundiswa Nadia Maseko]

Dear Jordi,

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on your position.

I respectfully beg to differ, not on the value of openness, but on the
assumption that openness alone is sufficient to guarantee legitimacy.

You describe the community as "global humanity" and note that anyone can
participate. In theory, I completely agree that the process is open. My
concern is whether openness necessarily translates into representation.

Political theory has long distinguished between formal participation and
effective participation. A process may be open to everyone, yet still be
shaped primarily by those with the time, institutional knowledge, and
procedural familiarity to engage continuously. In practice, these are
rarely the network operators spending their days deploying infrastructure,
expanding connectivity, and managing commercial risk.

This is not a criticism of the PDP itself. Rather, it is a recognition that
governance systems naturally develop an asymmetry between those who operate
institutions and those who operate networks.

That distinction matters.

The argument that "if you are unhappy, you should simply participate"
assumes that legitimacy is created by the availability of participation. I
would argue that legitimacy is strengthened when governance remains
proportionate to its mandate and when those who bear the greatest
operational and economic consequences are not required to become full-time
governance participants simply to protect their interests.

This brings me to portability.

When I refer to portability, I am not referring to the portability of IP
addresses themselves, but to the portability of governance relationships.

A resilient governance system should never assume permanent institutional
dependence. Just as the Internet itself was designed to eliminate single
points of failure, governance should also avoid creating situations where
operators are effectively locked into one institutional relationship with
no meaningful alternatives.

Portability therefore means that operators should be able to maintain
continuity of their number resources while retaining meaningful freedom of
institutional choice. The existence of credible alternatives creates
healthy accountability. Institutions perform best when they continue to
earn the confidence of those they serve, rather than assuming that
confidence will always exist.

Similarly, exit rights are not about abandoning coordination; they are
about ensuring that coordination remains voluntary rather than becoming
structurally unavoidable. In most governance systems, the ability to leave
is an important discipline on the exercise of authority. Where meaningful
exit becomes impossible, institutions inevitably accumulate greater
discretionary power over time because there are fewer practical constraints
on that power.

This is why I remain cautious about proposals that make IPv6 deployment a
criterion for IPv4 Soft Landing.

Viewed in isolation, it may appear to be a technical policy adjustment.
Viewed within the broader trajectory of Internet governance, however, it
represents another step in expanding institutional influence beyond
resource coordination and into operational decision-making.

Perhaps the more fundamental question is not whether IPv6 deployment is
beneficial—it clearly is in many contexts—but whether policy should
encourage technological outcomes through administrative conditions, or
whether its primary role should remain the neutral coordination of Internet
number resources.

The strength of the Internet has always been that it is decentralised,
interoperable, and resilient. I believe our governance principles should
aspire to those same characteristics.

Kind regards,

Fundiswa Nadia Maseko

"Decentralisation is sustained not only by open participation, but by
meaningful choice."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/d72bdb66/attachment.html>