[arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Colleagues,

I'd like this proposal to be approved. I've discussed it with Marty at 
the Cartegena ICANN meeting two weeks ago.

My concern is that new registry proposants who meet the criteria for 
assistance under the current JAS WG Milestone [1], or future work 
product of the JAS WG, are, under the current ICANN Draft Applicant 
Guidebook, required to be v6 capable. This is a cost that can be 
deferred, if 123 becomes ARIN policy, at least for the ARIN region, 
and if imitated by the other RIR's, more broadly.

The v6 capability is independent of the regional addressing 
infrastructure availability local to the registry infrastructure, 
registrars, or registrants.

The case for exempting applicants meeting the Milestone et seq. 
criteria for assistance, or any larger class of new, or new and 
existing, registry operators, from a near-term v6 capability 
requirement could be supported by the existence of a critical 
infrastructure address pool, allowing transition over a multi-quarter 
period, with address recovery for subsequent transitional allocation.

Professor Meuller, with whom I find little ever in common agreement, 
including the polarity of gravity, observes, for whatever reason, "In 
a world of 5,000 TLDs, do all g and cc TLDs have the same status?"

It is profoundly unlikely that each of the registry operators will be 
facilities-based operations, and not implemented as a tenant registry 
of a registry services provider, and assuming the 1k/yr gate asserted 
by the Root Scaling Study authors, on a three year transition, after 5 
years the number of independent, outstanding transitional allocations 
would be significantly less than 5k.

Eric Brunner-Williams
member, JAS WG

[1] http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#jas-milestone-report