well, i've argued new gtld registry operators in general do not
benefit from a manditory v6 reachability requirement at transition to
delegation, a position unpopular with v6 evangelicals and others who
suppose that new gtld registry operators will exist to serve "the next
billion users" rather than to offer alternate name space views to the
existing {b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles.
related, i've argue that new gtld registry operators in general do not
benefit from a manditory dnssec requirement, a position unpopular with
dnssec evangelicals and others who suppose that new gtld registry
operators will exist to serve ecommerce with sufficient generality,
persistence, and volume to make them more attractive targets for
rational economic exploits than existing, unsigned zones.
for those not keeping track, icann's laundry list of mandatory to
implements includes v6 reachibility, and dnssec, shortly after the
date of contract, so significantly prior to the operator acquiring
operational experience, and of course, cctlds, and existing gtlds, are
under no obligation to sign their zones.
i don't think of these positions as "naysaing" either v6 or dnssec,
just the it-must-be-done-now claims of urgency and universality of
some of the respective advocates for "sensible stuff", who because
they hold the right opinion, inform icann's ssac.
-e
