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

[Tyler O'Meara]

> The difference here is whether an sTLD (such as .app) is open to outside
registrations, while others named after their corporate owners are used
privately. So maybe the best language should be that a TLD operator must offer
DNS services to the general public in order to qualify.

I'd be hesitant to use "general public", since some TLDs have restrictions on
registration but are still widely available (such as .us requiring registrants
to be US residents), and presumably we want to keep those eligible. That said, I
do agree, if we choose to expand the scope of TLDs that are permitted to use 4.4
(which I support), we should have some language around a largeish number of
people being eligible. I'd also suggest we probably want a minimum number of
registered domains, since there are a _lot_ of TLDs now that would, in my
opinion, be a waste of 4.4 space.

> Do you think this should be added in a new section to 8.7, or specified within
the 4.4 section?

A new subsection under Section 8 seems most appropriate to me, as that is where
most (all?) of the transfer related language already exists.

Tyler

On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 14:57 -0800, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> A couple thoughts here.
> 
> > On Feb 24, 2025, at 14:10, Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> The difference here is whether an sTLD (such as .app) is open to outside
> registrations, while others named after their corporate owners are used
> privately. So maybe the best language should be that a TLD operator must offer
> DNS services to the general public in order to qualify.
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> This seems to be the consensus here despite whether or not they’ll ever have a
> need for it in practice.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Do you think this should be added in a new section to 8.7, or specified within
> the 4.4 section?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Chris
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>