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

[David Farmer]

As several others have already done, I want to thank you for bringing 
your perspective to this discussion. I have a few comments and questions 
in-line below.

On 12/21/10 18:55 CST, 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.

I take your comments as supporting the policy proposal in general, and 
note that the AC accepted this proposal on to its docket and I expect we 
will follow ARIN's normal policy development process and have a draft 
policy for discussion at the April Public Policy Meeting in San Juan. 
However the subject line for your email "Is Emergency action warranted 
for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?" 
could suggest you support emergency action beyond this.  So, my question 
is do you believe emergency actions is necessary for this proposal?  If 
so, what and why?

> 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 issue of post run-out CI has come up on some of other RIR's policy 
mailing lists and I would like to suggest that those discussion could 
equally benefit from your perspective.  So, I encourage you to 
participate those discussion or raise the issue within the other RIR's 
policy processes and mailing lists too.

> 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.

As others have commented, I don't think IPv6 is that much of an 
additional technical burden for a CI deployment, and should be fairly 
easy.  However, I have experience with IPv6 and little if any experience 
with CI deployments.  Also, I imagine there are many other things that 
such a new registry would probably need/want to focus on before IPv6. 
Therefore, I wouldn't want to ICANN to eliminate any IPv6 requirements, 
but maybe they shouldn't be primary decision factors either.

> 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

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================