[dns-operations] Enabling the IPv6-only Internet: the Final TLDs
edward.lewis at icann.org
Tue Sep 8 13:50:34 UTC 2015
Because this is an operations list...
On 9/7/15, 13:52, "dns-operations on behalf of Frank Bulk"
<dns-operations-bounces at dns-oarc.net on behalf of frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
>Perhaps you feel IPv6 is not important for the future of the Internet?
I was astonishingly in strong and complete agreement with Jim's message.
I mean that in the sense that there's usually some nit of difference, but
not this time. He's right on all points.
In a nutshell, I believe that the complete authority of an
administrative-operator of a zone (within the confines of any agreements
they may have) carries far more weight than IPv6. By
administrative-operator I am glossing over whether the administrator (who
makes external agreements) has chosen a third-party to operate the
>Now that Shane has identified the ccTLDs without IPv6 connectivity those
>have a relationship with them can start to have the conversation you end
>your email with.
If the admin-op doesn't have the time to talk, no, it is not the time to
have the conversation. It would just be annoying. In as much as IPV6
support is an effort, it still has to fit into a priority scheme. The
admin-op may want to deal with something else first.
I have (in-person) interacted with some admin-ops who are seen as
unresponsive to public email peer-pressure. In some cases they are simply
not responding to the email or ignoring it; they are aware of the mail but
it's of no concern to them. Perhaps because those they report to don't
care or translating into formal English would take away from some other
activity. Or simply the issue is just unimportant to them. Naming and
shaming doesn't work in these situations, it comes off as petty and
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4604 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the dns-operations