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

[Tyler O'Meara]

I agree with Martin that, for our purposes, the difference between an sTLD and a
gTLD is not meaningful. Additionally, I also agree that it is unlikely that gTLD
operators *need* Section 4.4 space; I'm sure Verisign is more than capable of
buying IPv4 addresses on the open market if need be. However in the same vein, I
disagree that most ccTLD operators also *need* that space.

All that said however, I don't think framing things in terms of needs is the
correct way to approach this policy. The purpose of Section 4.4 is to ensure the
continued smooth functioning of the Internet in a world where IPv4 is scarce.
This is accomplished by making available to the operators of Critical Internet
Infrastructure IPv4 addresses to be used for the operation of that CII. If we
accept this purpose (as I do), then the question to ask is "what do we consider
as Critical Internet Infrastructure?". I can't accept as reasonable any
definition that considers "aq." to be critical to the functioning of the
Internet but not "com.", "net." or "arpa.".

As such, I think the current policy's prohibition of all gTLDs from receiving
addresses from the 4.4 pool is unreasonable, and should ideally be changed. I
will not, however, oppose this policy solely because it retained that failing.
In fact, in spite of that issue, I'm largely in support of this policy.

To your suggestion for a possible Section 8.7; I think it is reasonable.
However, I would go a step forward and say it *must* be transferred when
operation is transferred, or otherwise be relinquished back to ARIN.

Tyler

On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 13:27 -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 2:31 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Today, it is clear that neither gTLDs nor sTLDs require special support or
> > protection within ARIN policy. ccTLD, [and] the root [do]
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> That seems fair. What do the rest of you think? Is this correct? Incorrect?
> 
> 
> > clarifying that the allocations are for the ccTLD's themselves, not their
> > hosters would also be appropriate.
> 
> I've been wondering about this. Do you have any language in mind?
> 
> My thoughts have been more toward the transfer side of the equation,
> making sure the addresses stay with the critical infrastructure.
> Instead of relying on section 8.2, would it be reasonable to set
> explicit transfer requirements? Maybe something like:
> 
> 8.7 Critical Internet Infrastructure
> 
> Addresses allocated under section 4.4 Critical Internet Infrastructure
> shall be transferred only to the subsequent operator of the critical
> infrastructure.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.