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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 13, 2021, at 14:54 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

I’m confused… If the government stops buying from suppliers who don’t meet this criteria, how is that intrusion into a private market?

The individual (or company) in question is still absolutely free to do as they wish. However, they forego receiving government business if they choose not to implement IPv6.

That’s capitalism at its finest. The government wants a certain behavior and it votes with its dollars to patronize the companies that behave accordingly?

Isn’t this how things are supposed to work?

>> 	+	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.

I didn’t expect you to agree, but I’ll still stand by the recommendation.

>> 	+	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.

Well… All the USF money poured into that so far hasn’t managed it, so we might as well have it provide something useful, like IPv6 progress in the process.

> 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.

I’m already getting tangible benefit from having IPv6 today. Since that’s already being done, I think you’ll have to come up with a better answer.

Owen