I'm not sure what about this talk makes you think IPv6 was "so horribly misconceived" ?
The mainstream commercial ISPs are going to make this far more painful than it had to be. For them it's a game of chicken. Swerve too soon (ie deploy IPv6 before exhaustion) and you've spent millions of dollars to prevent a problem that your customers won't know they had. So they all have the accelerator pedal flat against the floor and their eyes half-closed. Central government (funded by us, the tax payers) gets to clean up the mess when none of them swerve.
But we couldn't have avoided that. The protocol makes no difference. The transition is going to be very painful because it makes good commercial sense that way, not because of the relatively minor technical issues.
My own ISP, having received its formal notification that the RIR expects address exhaustion to occur in around 12 months, responded by telling its customers that there's nothing to worry about, it has no immediate plans to do anything, and there plenty of addresses. Sure, some subscribers might sue them in a year's time when the facts are more concrete, but that's a problem for the directors _next year_ the directors _now_ are focused on telling subscribers everything is OK.