<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Dear all,</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Jordi's deployment examples clearly show
that IPv6 can achieve impressive levels of traffic once implementation reaches
scale.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">However, those same examples also
illustrate another reality.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Even networks with very high IPv6
utilisation continue operating dual-stack environments because IPv4 remains an
essential part of today's Internet.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">That raises an important question for
this policy discussion.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">If dual-stack remains the practical
operational model for the foreseeable future, should IPv6 deployment become a
prerequisite for receiving IPv4 resources?</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">In my view, IPv4 Soft Landing should
primarily address how scarce IPv4 resources are managed fairly and
transparently.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">IPv6 adoption is certainly beneficial
where it improves operational efficiency, but making it a policy criterion
assumes there is a universal deployment pathway that every operator can
reasonably follow.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Operational realities differ
significantly across networks, markets and regions.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Successful Internet governance has
traditionally allowed those differences while maintaining neutral coordination
of shared resources.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Perhaps we should continue encouraging
IPv6 through collaboration, technical support and community knowledge sharing,
while ensuring IPv4 policy remains focused on managing IPv4 itself.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Keeping those objectives separate may
ultimately produce stronger outcomes for both protocols.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Kind regards,</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">Tshepo</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0mm;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">"IPv6 is not designed for
scarcity."</span></p></div>