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