[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG
avri at acm.org
Thu Dec 26 17:16:57 UTC 2013
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.
More information about the discuss