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

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 12/22/10 2:31 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> It look me a while to parse all of this, because much of the original
> mail looked like greek to me.  I'm afraid that may be the case for
> many others on the list.  Let me try and connect some dots at a
> really high level.
>
> ICANN continues to look at new gTLD's in a process way to detailed
> to get into in this forum.  Point is, think .bank, .Coke, or .XXX,
> or any other new non-country code TLD.
>
> A subgroup, the "JAS Working Group" is looking at part of the problem,
> it's charter is at
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-jas-wg-charter-12may10-en.htm.
>
> If I am parsing it correctly the idea is to identify people who
> ICANN thinks should have a gTLD, but who may not be able to "make
> a gTLD happen" all on their own.  This is a wide ranging task,
> inlcuding things like folks who should have a gTLD but can't afford
> the fees (and thus, fee wavers) to folks who don't really have the
> technical expertise to run a gTLD, and may need help from ICANN to
> make it happen in a technically correct way.


I'd nuance that last bit. The skill set for DNSSEC are still fairly 
closely held, and some people haven't seen more of v6 than ::1 in
their part of the globe. For reasons that I personally don't endorse, 
the SLA levels for start-ups in 2010 would preclude most of the 2005 
and all but two of the 2001 start-ups in the gTLD registry business.


> The most recent milestone report outlining all of this is here:
> http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf
>
> I think page 15 is where things get relevant to this list, everything
> I've written above and before that in the report is simply background
> for this partciular issue.  The working group said there is full
> concensus that
>
>    "The following kinds of technical support are identified for those
>     applicants that meet the criteria established for support:
>
>     ...
>
>     Infrastructure for providing support for IPv6 compatible solutions,
>     e.g. hardware and networks as needed;"
>
> Now, back to the original comment...


Thanks for reading the report Leo!


> In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 07:55:36PM -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is where I get lost.  Policy proposal 123, as written, would
> allow folks deploying gTLD's to get IPv4 number resources from a
> reserved pool.  It in fact says nothing about IPv6 resources, they
> are available today and will continue to be available in the future
> on the exact same terms.


I would like to ensure that new registry applicants have access to v4 
resources, and that they are not forced to "transition" to v6, or 
simply start v6-only, for v4 scarcity and cost reasons. If 123 exists, 
then it is reasonable to point to this as a means to reduce the 
impulse to require new registry operators to have v6 skills and 
plumbing in place ab initio.


> If the ICANN and/or the JAS WG has a requirement for IPv6 services than
> Proposal 123 is totally unrelated as it deals with IPv4 resources.

See above.

> If the concern is that some new gTLD's will try and use the resources
> available under Proposal 123 to deploy IPv4 _only_ support for
> gTLD's that is an administrative matter for ICANN and the JAS WG.
> Indeed, even without this pool gTLD's could obtain IPv4 resources
> from their upstream, via hosting companies, or even via the transfer
> market.  This Proposal 123 may make it a bit easier for them, but
> in no way is IPv4 impossible without it.


123 may make it a bit easier for them, and it offers terms at least as 
good as the transfer market or being forced to be tenants of their 
competitors.


> More to the point.  If a new gTLD operator comes online during the
> transition I think it is in the best interest of the gTLD operator,
> ICANN, ARIN, and the Internet at large that they have an IPv4 presense.
> One cannot consider deploying an IPv6 only gTLD until a substantial
> number of users have IPv6 services otherwise it would be crippled.
>
> Which leaves me utterly confused by the original comments.  I can't
> see how this hurts ICANN, the gTLD process, or the JAS WG in any
> way, in fact it appears to me this proposal should make it easier
> and operationally better to roll out new gTLD's.


Agree. Hence my expression, however greek, of support for it.

Eric