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

[Nia Petronella]

Dear Jordi,

I think the discussion is beginning to reveal a more fundamental question
than the mechanics of IPv6 deployment.

You note that if IPv6 deployment is not attached to the remaining IPv4
pool, then the rationale for Soft Landing becomes weaker. I understand the
historical intent of the policy. However, I wonder whether the policy
should continue to be evaluated against the assumptions that existed when
it was first developed, or against the realities of today's Internet.

The Internet has changed considerably. IPv4 is no longer simply a technical
resource awaiting replacement; it has become an economically significant
infrastructure asset that continues to underpin large parts of the global
Internet. At the same time, IPv6 has grown substantially, yet the Internet
remains overwhelmingly dual-stack rather than transitional.

Against that backdrop, I question whether it is appropriate for IPv4 policy
to become a vehicle for encouraging IPv6 deployment, or whether its primary
objective should instead be the neutral and predictable management of
scarce IPv4 resources.

You also asked what I mean by portability.

By portability, I mean the ability of operators to retain continuity and
certainty over their Internet number resources without being indefinitely
tied to a particular governance arrangement or institutional
interpretation. Good governance should create confidence because
institutions continue to earn the trust of their members, not because
members have no practical alternative.

>From a political and institutional perspective, resilient systems are
rarely those that depend on a single centre of authority. Rather, they are
those in which authority is constrained by accountability, transparency and
meaningful choice. The Internet itself was built on principles of
decentralisation and resilience. It seems reasonable to ask whether those
same principles should increasingly inform how Internet number resources
are governed.

I also found your point about government regulation interesting. I agree
that poorly designed regulation can produce unintended consequences, and
there are many examples where policymakers have struggled to appreciate the
technical realities of Internet operations.

However, I am not convinced that the alternative is for technical
institutions to continually expand their own policy remit. Avoiding state
overreach should not inadvertently justify institutional overreach
elsewhere. Good governance is not simply about who exercises authority; it
is also about ensuring that authority remains proportionate to its mandate.

This is why I continue to distinguish between coordinating Internet number
resources and influencing technology adoption. Encouraging IPv6 through
technical collaboration, operational support and shared experience is
entirely consistent with the role of the technical community. Making IPv6
deployment a condition within IPv4 policy, however, raises broader
governance questions about institutional neutrality and the appropriate
boundaries of policy.

Perhaps the question before us is not whether IPv6 is important—it clearly
is—but whether Internet number resource policy should primarily shape
technological outcomes or preserve a governance framework that allows
operators to make those decisions according to their own operational and
commercial realities.

I believe that distinction is worth careful consideration.

Kind regards,

Nonhlanhla

"Strong governance is measured not only by technical outcomes, but by the
restraint, neutrality and accountability of the institutions that exercise
authority."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260707/c3943d5b/attachment.html>