The proposed agreement is the result of several months of negotiations, formal community feedback, and meetings with various stakeholders and communities. Based on the community feedback during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing, ICANN and the Registry Agreement Negotiating Team maintained a consistent and swift pace to finalize the negotiations and bring the proposed terms into a final draft form, ready for community review and comment.

We have come a long way since February 2013 when we posted a proposed Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement for public comment. A new and highly spirited sense of mutual trust has catapulted us into a fresh atmosphere of collaboration, which in turn has led to a consistently more productive environment. The spirit of teamwork, productive dialogue and partnership that has underpinned this negotiation process is tremendously heartwarming, as it has allowed us to bring to fruition a robust contractual framework for the New gTLD Program.

On behalf of ICANN, I would like to sincerely thank the registry community for acting in good faith and with tremendous goodwill, making this last key step possible.

In October ICANN’s President & CEO, Fadi Chehadé, announced an ambitious plan for tackling one of ICANN’s most controversial issues—WHOIS. Undeterred by the decade’s long debate, and encouraged by the WHOIS Review Team’s Report, he challenged the notion that WHOIS couldn’t be fixed, and instead suggested a fresh approach. In line with this vision, the ICANN Board approved a two-pronged strategy to adopt the WHOIS Review Team (RT)’s recommendations to fully enforce the existing WHOIS policy and to follow the SSAC’s recommendations to redefine the purpose and scope of data directory services. When complete, ICANN hopes to transform the current antiquated WHOIS system into one that is better suited for the needs of tomorrow’s Internet.

I’d like to share with you some information on ICANN’s progress on these WHOIS-related activities.

Execution of the WHOIS RT Recommendations. The Board’s November WHOIS resolution prioritized and kicked-off a series of activities throughout ICANN—involving the Board, Staff, registrars, registries, the GNSO, At-Large and other interested community members— to implement the WHOIS RT Recommendations. Highlights include:

• Reshaping online services. Chris Gift, ICANN’s newly appointed Vice President of Online Community Services, has been tapped by Fadi to, among other duties, create an "information portal" that will be a one-stop shop for WHOIS related inquiries targeted at helping consumers understand and use WHOIS. The portal is to include WHOIS look-ups for both thin and thick registries, and links to educational materials and a compilation of WHOIS policy and provisions. This department also will build tools to statistically sample and report on WHOIS accuracy as part of a new effort to increase data accuracy and create accuracy metrics, as recommended by the WHOIS-RT. Research and planning are under way for both of these key initiatives.
• Enhanced Contractual Framework supporting WHOIS. The WHOIS RT noted areas where existing contracts could be enhanced to better support enforcement of current WHOIS obligations, improve accuracy, and issues related to privacy services. In response to these recommendations, ICANN has proposed amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) that include:
• WHOIS Accuracy Specification requiring validation and verification of certain WHOIS data fields.
• Specification on Privacy/Proxy Services that sets minimum requirements (escrow, relay requirements, abuse point of contact, and disclosure of service terms) for services offered by Registrar or its resellers.
• WHOIS Specification describing a minimum Service Level Agreement for WHOIS Port 43 requirements and a commitment to adopt the IETF’s WEIRDS protocol after publication by IETF, which is expected to accommodate IDN WHOIS records.
• Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Specification, that is to be accompanied by significant media outreach, to educate & informs registrants of their obligations to maintain the accuracy of their WHOIS records.
• 2013 RAA to be a Requirement for New GTLDs, in furtherance of ICANN’s commitment to make WHOIS a strategic priority.
• ICANN Compliance efforts to enforce WHOIS obligations. The WHOIS RT offered recommendations to improve ICANN Compliance Team’s structure, communications, and enforcement of WHOIS obligations. Substantial progress has been made. Highlights include:
• Reinforcing WHOIS Compliance as a priority by moving Compliance directly under the CEO.
• A New Consolidated Complaint Management System that improves both the user experience and the compliance operations; phase one was launched this week with WHOIS inaccuracy as a priority.
• Completed rollout of Compliance Process to WHOIS complaints processing; this improved processing quality and efforts, including shortening complaint resolution time.
• Launched an Audit Program that includes review of inaccuracy responses and WHOIS data elements "population," among other elements.
• Increased compliance updates and published the Annual Report

A more complete description of the implementation activities is contained in the table below and detailed program reporting will be regularly issued to enable the community to track the progress of these activities.

Under Development: Next Generation Data Directory Services

In December, ICANN launched a new effort to replace the current WHOIS system with a call for volunteers to serve on an Expert Working Group. After an exhaustive search, the members of the Expert Working Group were announced, and each of them brings extraordinary expertise, leadership and consensus building skills. Led by Jean Francois Baril, the Expert Working Group will start from scratch, and take a fresh look at what the ideal data directory services might be. This effort is expected to produce a model for a replacement system—referred to as the "Next Generation Data Directory Services"—that is to take into account data accuracy and access issues, while at the same time including appropriate safeguards for privacy. The outcome of the Expert Working Group is to serve as a foundation for the GNSO’s creation of new consensus policy (and requisite contract changes, as appropriate), as requested by the ICANN Board.

The Expert Working Group met for two days in Los Angeles, and met again for another two days in London, prior to convening once again in Beijing. For more information on the group’s activities, including meeting reports, please visit the Expert Working Group’s Wiki: or attend the session in Beijing on Monday April for the latest developments regarding this key project.

We will continue to keep you updated on implementation of the WHOIS Review Team recommendations and the Expert Working Group’s progress, and look forward to receiving your input in Beijing, online and in future webinars.

Implementation of WHOIS Review Team Recommendations

The great thing about a train trip is not speed, but the fact that it facilitates reflection. This one allowed me to contemplate the meeting I just attended in NYC, the Digital Marketing & gTLD Strategy Congress.

What was notable about this particular conference, more than what was said, was the simple fact that the meeting was the first of its kind.

In no small way, it marked an unofficial and unheralded moment in the new gTLD program, where the emphasis began to noticeably shift from the application and evaluation process, to the question of how best to use a new gTLDs. In short… the fun stuff!

The conference drew about 100 new gTLD applicants, branding consultants and marketing specialists.

The new gTLD program has given them a blank canvas and they are beginning to paint an online landscape that may well redefine the way we will come to view Domain Names. Some of the images are clear, others are emerging slowly, one brush stroke at a time.

The theme that seemed to resonate most, was that some applicants are simply not waiting to hear whether they passed initial evaluation before they map out the branding and/or marketing strategies for their applied for Domain Names.

“If you wait until then, it might be too late,” said Louis Cohen, Citibank’s Senior Vice President of North America Marketing.

Citibank has applied for “.citi” and if it ends up being delegated, then Cohen said Citibank wants to bring all its many web sites in “one trusted location, which will be easy to navigate.”

Like many of the attendees, Cohen was somewhat guarded about going into the exact details of Citibank’s plans if its new gTLD application is approved, but his enthusiasm was unmistakable.

“The time to form a plan is now,” said Jennie-Marie Larsen, the CEO of DomainDiction, a PR/Marketing firm devoted entirely to new gTLDs.

“The challenge is how to be noticed,” said Larsen during a panel discussion on how businesses can use their news gTLDs to increase customer engagement strategies.

Some attendees said they don’t expect broad and immediate acceptance of gTLDs, but they also said that will not be terribly disconcerting, since the dot-com sites that many applicants already have, are not going anywhere.

ICANN’s head of Global Stakeholder Engagement told the attendees that she wants to herald the long anticipated arrival of new gTLDs. “We are developing a comprehensive communications plan,” Sally Costerton told the attendees. “We want to raise global awareness that new gTLDs are coming.”

In other words, the train is finally arriving!

Over the course of a day, we discussed the evolution of the DNS sector from a number of perspectives and explored the opportunities and risks that these changes pose. The group provided constructive ideas about creating a platform for growth, innovation, and greater consumer and investor awareness. Research analysis, the creation of an infographic depicting the DNS ecosystem, and mechanisms to educate the media and public about the DNS sector were also highlighted.

In short, we addressed common goals, shared responsibilities and the value of raising awareness among consumers worldwide of the DNS sector, affirming our commitment to the public interest. I also expressed my hope and vision for a strengthened and streamlined business contracting framework between ICANN and its contracted parties.

While the topic of the roundtable was not the new gTLD program, I was asked to clarify recent comments I made at the ICANN Registry and Registrar meeting in Amsterdam. I took the opportunity to reassure everyone that:

• ICANN remains focused on the new gTLD timeline, and I am confident that we can do so without comprising ICANN’s deep, immovable commitment to the stability of the DNS.

• We do not foresee any delays of the new gTLD program, we are working to assure that none occur, and the entire organization is pressing forward to comply with deadlines.

• We have assembled a team of qualified professionals, experienced in making complex programs fully operational, and they have my full confidence. Staff is working hard and it is important for the community to be aware of the intense demands placed upon them by the schedule.

• We will continue to increase the volume of communications pertaining to operational details of the new gTLD program, addressing both the technical and political risks encountered at various decision points.

• I will also endeavor to explain, to the extent possible, the trade-offs and various considerations being balanced during each implementation milestone of the new gTLD program.

I am grateful to the registry leaders for their candid, constructive feedback and look forward to continued dialogue as we host more CEO roundtables through the spring. Finally, I have asked past roundtable participants to consider participating in a DNS Summit meeting to serve as the culminating event for this series.

Roundtable participants (as pictured) include:

Top Row (from left to right): Fadi Chehadé, Edmon Chung, Raymond King, Paul Stahura, Adrian Kinderis, Khashayar Mahdavi, Thomas Embrescia, Santi Ribera and Cary Karp

Bottom Row (from left to right): D. James Bidzos, Antony Van Couvering, Stuart Lawley, Byron Henderson, Brian Cute and Frank Schilling

1. Trademark Clearinghouse Agreements
   1. I am pleased to announce that we have signed an agreement with Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services to be the first provider of validation services for the Trademark Clearinghouse. As promised, we will be posting that agreement shortly. The terms are in line with what I shared in my last blog entry:
      • ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data. (Note this is as between ICANN and Deloitte. ICANN claims no intellectual property rights with respect to user data.)
      • Deloitte’s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met.
      • Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record per year. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
      • IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API).
      • ICANN may audit Deloitte’s performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable.
   2. I am also pleased to announce that we are making continued progress on negotiations with IBM for the provision of database services. This contract is structured around a master agreement, with separate statements of work to provide for the relevant services. We are now working on the first Statement of Work for the database, and expect to conclude this in the next weeks. We expect to negotiate and conclude the second Statement of Work, covering the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services, in January. Here are some highlights based on the current discussions:
      • IBM will maintain the Trademark Clearinghouse Database.
      • Data will be imported to the Database within three hours of receipt from a Validator.
      • IBM will be available 24 x 7 for high severity incidents impacting the operability of the database.
      • ICANN will receive all intellectual property rights necessary for transition to a new database provider.
      • IBM will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods. The fee structure remains under consideration.

2. The “Strawman Solution”

   As noted in the last blog posting, the “strawman solution” developed during the stakeholder meetings has been posted for public comment, and also sent to the GNSO Council for their input. I understand that this request is on the Council’s agenda for its 20 December 2012 meeting.

   I noted that the public comment notice has been updated to include the full range of what, together with staff, I determined to be implementation vs. policy. (This included some modifications from the original posting which I entered last week.)

   We will be awaiting the GNSO’s response, as well as considering and analyzing the comments received on the strawman, to help us determine the appropriate next steps.

3. Additional Updates

   I shared a few additional updates on today’s call. On the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation, the good news is that we have received multiple submissions in response to the RFI that are within the target price range, and we will shortly be publishing an announcement on this.

   As promised in Toronto, now that the Trademark Clearinghouse and URS are well on the way to successful implementation, I will focus next on the RAA negotiations. Regrettably, we could not gather enough people to hold the first discussion in December as intended, but we are scheduling this for early in January.

Currently, I do not have plans to hold additional conference calls on this matter, as we are now on a good path and the implementation team will continue to work through the remaining milestones for getting the Trademark Clearinghouse up and running.

I attempted with great care to maintain a delicate balance throughout this effort. I felt sandwiched between my deep respect (and growing understanding) of the GNSO processes, and the need to resolve some pressing matters that were standing in the way of a successful implementation — an implementation that we would all stand and defend with pride in the public eye.

While no collaborative process is perfect, I have done my best to ensure that all voices have been heard and that we are working collectively to arrive at a balanced outcome for the public benefit. I learned a lot from the process that will serve me well in the months and years ahead.

I would like to put on record my thanks to all those who engaged in these issues with me in that spirit, and the tremendous effort and good will that were demonstrated. Now, let’s move forward together. We have much to do as a community!

Sincerely,

Fadi

We discussed two items:

1. An update on the Trademark Clearinghouse contract, and
2. A way forward on the strawman solution developed during the meeting in Los Angeles.

Contracts

ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the trademark database.

Here is an overview:

• ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data.
• Deloitte’s validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met.
• Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions.
• IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API), and will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods.
• ICANN may audit Deloitte’s performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable.

We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the agreements will be posted once signed.

The "Strawman Solution"

As promised, we reviewed each of the elements of the strawman solution to identify a way forward, paying special attention to determining whether each properly belonged in a policy or implementation process. We did not find that any element of the strawman was inconsistent with the policy advice from GNSO recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. However, the analysis of the various elements yielded different recommended steps for consideration, as described below.

• Sunrise Notice Requirement. Our analysis is that the addition of the required 30-day notice period for Sunrise falls clearly into the realm of implementation. The policy advice did not recommend specific time periods, and this is a reasonable means to help address the communications concerns of rights holders, especially in light of the high volume of gTLD applications.
• Trademark Claims. The extension of Trademark Claims from 60 to 90 days can also be considered implementation, as it is a matter of continuing a service that is already required. The addition of a “Claims 2” process could also fall into the category of implementation given that it is an optional, fee-based service for rights holders, and is more lightweight than what registries and registrars will have implemented in the Trademark Claims 1 period. This service is envisioned to benefit both consumers and trademark holders, and is consistent with the objectives of the Trademark Claims service developed by the community. To the extent that there are additional costs incurred by registries and registrars, I envision that these fees can be offset when the process is implemented, as a portion of the fees to be collected by IBM for this voluntary service are to be shared with registries and registrars.

• Scope of Trademark Claims. The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.

  I wrote in the original version of this blog post: “the inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered implementation, as it provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record. This is consistent with the policy advice that trademark rights should be protected, and, given that the inclusion of such names would be only on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding, the process would merely take into account names for which the issues have already been balanced and considered. However, given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.” This language appeared to create ambiguity as to the nature of the analysis, and has been updated as above.

I will be sending a message to the GNSO Council asking it for guidance on the Scope of Trademark Claims. In addition, the strawman model will be posted this week for public comment. I am also including, along with the strawman model, a revised proposal from the BC/IPC for limited preventative registrations designed to address the need for second-level defensive registrations. Although this proposal is not currently part of the strawman model, I will be seeking guidance from the GNSO Council on this proposal as well.

As a reminder, the strawman model was developed by participants selected by the respective stakeholder groups in the GNSO. I thank them for working with me to explore a balanced set of improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available for new gTLDs.

I plan to convene this group one last time to discuss the outcome of planned contractual talks with IBM. I hope for this to happen later this week or next week.

Sincerely,
Fadi

For many of us in the technical community, it feels like we’ve been talking about the need to adopt IPv6 for years.

The RIPE NCC – the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia – made our first IPv6 allocation back in 1999. The ‘Internet of things’ was first being talked about, mobile networking was starting to gather pace and we were catching a first glimpse of how these developments could change the world.

Although supplies of IPv4 address space were still plentiful at this point, we already knew that the 4.3 billion available IPv4 addresses would not be able to keep up with Internet development. We set about informing anyone who would listen about IPv6, the next generation of Internet addressing, which massively increased the number of IP addresses and would ensure that the Internet could grow and expand well into the future.

Permanently Enabled

Fast forward to 2012 and we may finally be reaching a tipping point; the moment at which deploying IPv6 moves from being something that should be done to something that must be done as soon as possible or run the risk of having parts of the Internet becoming unreachable to millions of future users.

Building on the success of the World IPv6 Day held in 2011, the World IPv6 Launch event was held on 6 June 2012 and resulted in some of the world’s biggest Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content distribution networks permanently enabling IPv6 access for their sites and services, bridging one of the most significant gaps on the road to universal IPv6 access.

Some of the data we collected during the World IPv6 Launch, as well as our experts’ analysis of it, is available on the RIPE Labs website.

An Issue For All Stakeholders

But progress in the global deployment of IPv6 is not limited to the technical community. The public sector has made some great strides over the last few years in recognising the importance of IPv6 deployment in ensuring that their national and cross-border industries are prepared for the future.

The RIPE community has been hard at work drafting an updated version of a best practice document on “Requirements for IPv6 in ICT Equipment” which specifically targets public sector and large enterprise network operators. And, the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS) has published a document on “Deploying IPv6”.

Just this month, the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) IPv6 Group brought its activities to a close, noting the important collaborations already being undertaken by public sector players in emerging markets and technical organisations including the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs.

Education, Outreach and Capacity Building

However, it’s the hands-on network building that is vital to successful IPv6 deployment for all sectors. IPv6 compatibility means little without the education and knowledge sharing to set up networks that use IPv6 and can connect to the IPv4 Internet.

This has increased the importance of programs like the IPv6 Roadshow, an initiative from the Middle East Network Operators’ Group (MENOG) and the RIPE NCC that brings together international technical trainers and local government and enterprise network operators for 3-5 day practical workshops. The RIPE NCC has also been providing IPv6 Training Courses to our members free of charge since 2009, and offering comprehensive information about IPv6 deployment on our http://www.ipv6actnow.org website.

Meanwhile, a global awareness campaign continues to build pace, with the Internet technical community attending technical and non-technical events and conferences around the world to talk about the urgent need for IPv6 deployment for every kind of Internet stakeholder.

We have developed a packed agenda for the IPv6 session which takes place at 09:00 on 28 June at the upcoming ICANN 44 Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. Alongside presentations on IPv6 allocation and deployment statistics, there’ll be talks on the World IPv6 Launch, and IPv6 deployment experiences from the cc-TLD operator and government perspectives. APNIC’s Chief Scientist, Geoff Huston, will also be talking about how he sees the evolution of the IPv6 Internet.

Building on this kind of outreach is vital to ensuring that the global deployment of IPv6 continues to gather pace. With one RIR (APNIC) already only able to assign small amounts of IPv4 space from their last portion of IPv4 space (the so-called "last /8") and the RIPE NCC set to hit our own last /8 in the coming months, we are beginning to see real progress in the deployment of IPv6. However, there is still a long way to go until we can ensure that future reachability of the Internet is guaranteed for new and existing Internet users; the time to act on global IPv6 deployment is now.

对于技术群体中的大多数人来说，我们感到对于采纳 IPv6 的必要性似乎已经讨论了数年时间。

RIPE NCC（负责欧洲、中东和中亚部分地区的地区互联网注册管理机构）于 1999 年首次进行 IPv6 分配。当时，”互联网事务”被首次提及，移动网络开始快速发展，我们首次领略了这些发展给世界带来的变革。

尽管此时 IPv4 地址空间供应仍然充足，但是我们已经明白，43 亿的可用 IPv4 地址无法满足互联网的发展需求。我们开始向每位希望了解 IPv6 的人宣传有关 IPv6 的信息，希望让大家了解它是下一代互联网协议版本，它将大大增加 IP 地址的数量，并确保互联网能够在未来发展壮大。

永久启用

转眼进入 2012 年，最终，我们可能到达这样一个拐点 – 此时，IPv6 的部署从一件应该完成的事转变成为必须尽快完成的事，否则，数百万未来互联网用户就有可能无法使用互联网。

在 2011 年世界 IPv6 日 (World IPv6 Day) 成功举办的基础上，世界 IPv6 启动 (World IPv6 Launch) 活动已于 2012 年 6 月 6 日举行；由此，某些全球最大的互联网服务提供商 (ISP) 和内容分布网络的站点与服务永久启用 IPv6 访问，弥补了实现全球 IPv6 访问过程中的其中一个主要差距。

可以访问 RIPE Labs 网站，获取我们在世界 IPv6 启动活动中收集的部分数据以及我们的专家对此进行的分析。

有关所有利益主体的问题

IPv6 的全球部署进程并不仅限于技术群体。公众领域在过去数年已经获得了显著进步，认可了 IPv6 部署在确保其全国与跨国行业从容面对未来挑战中的重要性。

RIPE 群体已经通过努力起草了名为”ICT 设备对 IPv6 的要求“的更新版本的最佳做法文件，它专门针对公众领域和大型企业网络运营商。此外，瑞典邮政与通讯传播管制局 (PTS) 发布了一份名为”正在部署 IPv6“的文件。

本月，国际电信联盟 (ITU) IPv6 小组的活动即将落幕，意味着新兴市场的公众领域参与者已经开始与技术组织（包括 RIPE NCC 和其他 RIR）进行重要合作。

培训、外展和能力培养

实地网络构建对于 IPv6 在各个领域的成功部署至关重要。IPv6 兼容性意味着无需进行培训和知识共享即可设置使用 IPv6 并可与 IPv4 互联网相连接的网络。

这增强了诸如 IPv6 巡回推介 (IPv6 Roadshow) 等计划的重要性；该计划这是一项由中东网络运营者组织 (MENOG) 和 RIPE NCC 发起的举措，根据该计划，国际技术培训师、本地政府与企业网络运营者将进行为期 3-5 天的实践研讨会。自 2009 年起，RIPE NCC 还免费为我们的成员提供了 IPv6 培训课程，并在我们的网站上 (http://www.ipv6actnow.org) 提供关于 IPv6 部署的综合信息。

同时，一项提高 IPv6 全球知晓度的活动在继续加快步伐：互联网技术群体参加在全球举行的技术与非技术活动和会议，讨论为各类互联网利益主体部署 IPv6 的迫切需求。

我们已经为将于 6 月 28 日 09:00 举行的 IPv6 会议制定了一套议程，该会议将在捷克共和国布拉格举行的第 44 届 ICANN 会议期间召开。会上除了讲述关于 IPv6 分配和部署统计资料的信息外，还将从 cc-TLD 运营者和政府角度讨论世界 IPv6 启动活动以及 IPv6 的部署经历。APNIC 首席科学家 Geoff Huston 还将就自己如何看待 IPv6 互联网的演进发表演讲。

开展此类外展活动对于确保继续加快 IPv6 的全球部署步伐至关重要。地区互联网注册管理机构 – 亚太互联网络信息中心 (APNIC) 目前只有少量可供分配的 IPv4 空间（所谓的”最后 /8 地址段”），且在未来数月 RIPE NCC 也会将我们自己的”最后 /8 地址段”分配完；因此，我们需要采取实际行动来部署 IPv6。然而，前面的道路还很漫长，我们还不能确保新互联网用户和现有互联网用户在未来能够正常使用互联网；全球 IPv6 部署迫在眉睫。