[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> However, I can see several situations where USG could exert legitimate pressure. I’m not sure that they should, necessarily, but I am
> not completely convinced that they should not, either. Note that nothing I propose below represents an area where the USG does
> not already regulate the matter in question to some extent or other.
>
> 	+	Do not buy network products from vendors that do not offer fully IPv6 enabled services.
> 	+	Do not buy from suppliers whose web sites are not reachable from an IPv6-only network after <date>
Strongly disagree in yet additional government intrusion into private 
market, the individuals right to choose what to build sell or purchase 
is part of your freedom to live how you choose. Dont take it for granted.
> 	+	Require providers to offer IPv6 services to call their service offering “Internet”.
> 	+	Require providers to offer IPv6 services at X Mbps to call their service offering “broadband internet”.
In reality, the Internet is ipv4 with some IPv6 overlap and nothing 
interesting IPv6 only. Let labeling and advertising be truth controlled, 
not propaganda driven. Disagree.
> 	+	Require providers to offer IPv6 services in order to receive any USF or other subsidies.

Not opposed. However, in reality, this just becomes a checkbox the likes 
we have seen before, and it costs money that might have been better 
spent elsewhere, like in actually delivering broadband.

There is only one effective and acceptable approach to deploying IPv6 
any quicker than is happening now, and that is to focus on providing 
tangible benefit to its users now, today.

>
> These would be pretty low hanging fruit and would be difficult to call “overreach” as each of them is already much more intrusively
> regulated for other purposes by USG.
>
> Owen

I certainly hope not.

Joe