Agreeing on a common standard is not authoritarianism.
That doesn't sound like agreement.
Agreement is how we have arrived at the imperfect solution we have now... Agreement between various technical and non-technical parties.
Similarly, mandating an Internet Protocol that doesn't require centralization (you know, NAT) and renting an address from the Big Boys (AWS etc) sounds like a perfectly sensible decision to me.
> Agreement is how we have arrived at the imperfect solution we have now...
I disagree. What we have now is not an explicit agreement, it's a status quo which can be broken by an external force.
Followed by another sentence.
Ending with a quote that implies a worldview that the government should use violence without any balance "it's a status quo broken by an external force".
Forcing people to use it is authoritarianism.
In order to force IPv6 and ensure nobody is using IPv4, you absolutely are putting laws on what goes over those Ethernet frames.
Why do people immediately assume that any possible regulation will be the stupidest possible regulation? Corporate brainwashing?
A standard is something that people have to adhere to in order to measure things in a portable way, or for general interop. It's not anything that one is told to do by a government.