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

[Scott Leibrand]

Thanks to both Leo and Eric for the clarifications here, most of which
I've elided for brevity.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/10 2:31 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> 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.

I agree that new TLDs should not be forced into v6-only services due
to lack of availability of IPv4.  I don't believe that changes the
need for them to do IPv6 as well, but in any event ICANN's IPv6
requirement is orthogonal to this proposal, and outside of the scope
of ARIN policy.

>> 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.

I definitely agree that 123 will be beneficial for new TLD operators.
If the community sees that as being beneficial for everyone (due to
the nature of CI services), then I think 123 should be adopted on that
basis.  If, however, 123 is primarily perceived as a benefit to a
particular class of organizations and not to the community as a whole,
I think there are other acceptable avenues to accomplish that, without
special policy treatment.

>> 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.

Thanks for speaking up, and working with us to understand your
comments.  Outside perspectives are particularly useful, and I hope
you (and others) will continue to contribute to the policy process.

-Scott