[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

Thu Dec 26 17:16:57 UTC 2013

Hi,

Looked at from another perspective, as an example - not trying to argue 
the issue itself.

Can the IPv6 issue be separated from the IPv4 issues?  There are not 
only technical pressures on a hoped for decrease in the usage in IPv4, 
there are policy actions taken, or not taken, to hasten the death of 
IPv4 and to avoid long term coexistence with IPv6.

Some of these actions, e.g., concern global redistribution of the 
'privately held' IPv4 address space. (privately held is in quotes 
because there is a policy discussion on whether such holding can be 
consider property or not - a governance decision?)  Can addresses be 
sold? Should it be allowed?  Would enabling redistribution of IPv4 
address to regions that don't have them alleviate the IPv6 pressures? 
And should that affect policy? How should it affect policy?

This was, e.g., one of the IPv6 issues that came up in WCIT, with 
government functionaries telling sad stories that they had promised 
their government bosses IPv6 as the solution for their countries ages 
ago, but it was still a future solution; if they wanted Internet now, 
they needed more IPv4 now.  I assume they got what they needed, but this 
looks like a matter suited for governance.

Decisions were made, for e.g., in the RIRs and in ICANN (maybe ISOC too) 
that the push for IPv6 would be done in a certain way, and that had 
implications for the transfers of 'private' IPv4 address blocks. Without 
trying to judge the decision that got made along the way, I can't help 
but hold them up as Internet governance policy opportunities.  Things 
are not quite as simple as the ISPs now see the commercial value of IPv6.

One other note on governance.  For some people, largely governments but 
others as well, governance immediately brings to mind government 
intervention.  I do not believe this is necessarily the case. 
Governance does not, of necessity include governments, it just requires 
methods and process for resolving and appealing policy issues.  And 
while democratic participatory multistakeholder governance allows for 
governmental (diplomatic, regulatory, and /or operational) participation 
especially when their interests or capabilities are involved, it does 
not normatively turn decisions over to governments or even require their 
participation in all governance issues.

avri