[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)

[Gugu Dhlamini]

Dear All,

I would like to register my objection to the proposal to make IPv6
deployment a criterion for IPv4 soft landing.

I share the concerns raised by Fundiswa, Thandeka, and Nonhlanhla during
the discussion.

The purpose of a soft-landing policy should be to ensure the fair,
predictable, and operationally sound management of the remaining IPv4
address pool. Introducing IPv6 deployment as an eligibility criterion
shifts the policy away from resource stewardship and towards influencing
operational decisions that are better left to network operators.

IPv6 deployment is an important objective, but it should progress because
it delivers technical and business value—not because it becomes a
regulatory condition for accessing IPv4 resources. Organisations adopt IPv6
at different rates depending on their infrastructure, customer demand,
commercial environment, and technical readiness. A policy that conditions
IPv4 access on IPv6 deployment risks creating artificial barriers while
doing little to address the underlying operational realities of Internet
networks.

More fundamentally, resource management policies should avoid expanding the
role of the registry beyond maintaining an accurate and reliable allocation
ledger. The role of the registry is to administer Internet number resources
in a neutral, transparent, and predictable manner, not to use allocation
policy as a mechanism to direct network architecture or operational
behaviour. Conflating these roles risks unnecessary policy complexity and
expands institutional authority beyond what is required for effective
registry operations.

A resilient Internet depends on maintaining the continuity and integrity of
the registry while allowing operators the flexibility to determine how best
to manage their own network transitions. Encouraging IPv6 adoption through
technical support, education, incentives, and capacity building is likely
to be more effective than making it a prerequisite for IPv4 eligibility.

For these reasons, I do not support including IPv6 deployment as a
criterion for IPv4 soft landing and encourage the Working Group to pursue
approaches that promote IPv6 adoption without compromising the neutrality
and operational focus of the registry.

BR,
Gugu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260717/81cec648/attachment.html>