[arin-ppml] ARIN-2024-5 Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation - Community Questions

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:08 PM Chris Woodfield <cwoodfield at gmail.com>
wrote:

> As AC shepherds for the critical infrastructure draft (2024-5) we'd like
> to get input on the draft policy text and collect some feedback on open
> issues that the shepherds have received from multiple sources. This will
> help us edit the draft for presentation at ARIN 55 and, if there is
> consensus, advancement to the NRPM.
>
> The current draft text can be found on ARIN’s policy page here:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/
>
> Below are the points in the current proposed policy text that we’d like to
> get community feedback on.
>

> ----
> Under 4.4, Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) Allocations:
>

[ clip ]


> “[Critical Internet Infrastructure] includes Internet Exchanges,
> IANA-authorized root servers, ccTLD operators, ARIN and IANA”
>
> - The current text references “core DNS service providers”, while the
> proposal text is more restrictive, only specifying ccTLD operators as
> eligible to apply for CII resources. Should this be expanded to encompass
> other types of TLD operators, such as gTLD, sponsored TLD, and/or possibly
> others? Or simply revert to the more expansive language in existing text?
>

These leading questions seem well suited to rewriting the 14th amendment,
but I digress:

The difference between sponsored TLDs (sTLDs) and generic TLDs (gTLDs) is
that sTLDs can operate in a restricted (closed) manner if their sponsor
chooses, whereas gTLDs are generally open for public registration. However,
both can be for-profit entities.


A significant number of sTLDs now function similarly to gTLDs, as many of
their originally intended special-purpose models failed. When Section 4.4
was originally drafted, gTLDs and ccTLDs were included due to uncertainty
about their impact. For example, why should pornhub, an sTLD, be granted
privileged resources when Erol's Internet, a network operator, has to sit
on the waiting list or use the transfer market? Today, it is clear that
neither gTLDs nor sTLDs require special support or protection within ARIN
policy. ccTLD, the root and IXPs were the intended clarity.

Here's who has benefitted from CI:

V4: https://pastebin.com/Sec5dPrz
V6: https://pastebin.com/dthW7TsN

Not too bad!

Regarding ccTLDs, two key considerations. "in-region" eligibility and
naturally embedded government systems for most. Perhaps including language
to ensure the resources aren't used for hosting, would be appropriate?
Based on the current 4.4 allocations I would venture to guess most of the
ccTLD is hosted. In that case, clarifying that the allocations are for the
ccTLD's themselves, not their hosters would also be appropriate.

+1 for routing these prefixes. All or none as well. It was never the intent
of the policy.

Warm regards,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250222/d11139ae/attachment.htm>