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

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 21, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 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.
> 
I don't see any relationship between this policy and deferring IPv6 capability.

> The v6 capability is independent of the regional addressing infrastructure availability local to the registry infrastructure, registrars, or registrants.
> 
Makes sense. As it should be.

> 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.
> 
I think that would be a very good reason NOT to approve such a policy.


Owen