<html><head><style>pre,code,address {
margin: 0px;
}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
margin-top: 0.2em;
margin-bottom: 0.2em;
}
ol,ul {
margin-top: 0em;
margin-bottom: 0em;
}
blockquote {
margin-top: 0em;
margin-bottom: 0em;
}
</style></head><body><div>Responses in line<br><br>Tyler</div><div><br>On Tue, 2025-02-18 at 12:07 -0800, Chris Woodfield wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>The current draft text can be found on ARIN’s policy page here:</div><div><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/</a></div><div><br></div><div>Below are the points in the current proposed policy text that we’d like to get community feedback on.</div><div><br></div><div>----</div><div>Under 4.4, Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) Allocations:</div><div>“The intent of this policy is not to unreasonably preclude the use of an allocated prefix in servicing the needs of Critical Internet Infrastructure.”</div><div><br></div><div>- We’ve received feedback that text declaring the intent of a policy is superfluous, and could lead to ambiguous guidance to ARIN staff when evaluating specific address requests under this section. Should this statement be removed?<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this should be removed.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Also under 4.4:</div><div>“Only Section 8.2 transfers are allowed.”</div><div><br></div><div>- Current policy prohibits 4.4 resources, along with 4.10 resources, from being transferred under sections 8.3 and 8.4, making this statement redundant under current text, as that leaves 8.2 as the only qualified type of transfer. Should this be deleted, or might it make sense to keep it in to disallow any additional transfer types that may be added to Section 8 in the future?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This should be deleted, as Section 8.x already specifies the requirements for the relevant transfers.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Under 4.4: </div><div>“ARIN will reserve a /15 equivalent of IPv4 address space for Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) within the ARIN RIR service area. Allocations from this pool will be no smaller than a /24.”</div><div><br></div><div>and later under 4.4.2:, Root and ccTLD Allocations:</div><div>“Root and ccTLD operators will provide justification of their need and certification of their status as currently active zone operators.”</div><div><br></div><div>- The proposal text (and, to be fair, the text it aims to replace) is silent on justification criteria for IX allocations larger than a /24. Our understanding is that absent explicit guidance, ARIN staff has used the justification language in Section 4.2.2 or 4.2.4 to evaluate these depending on the request type. Should the qualification criteria be made explicit in the proposed policy text? Should an alternate justification criteria be proposed for larger IX allocations under this section?</div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br>Rather than adding requirements to 4.4.1 or 4.4.2 I would add the following (or similar) under 4.4: "Requests under this Section must be justified under either Section 4.2 or 4.3 in addition to meeting the specific requirements below". This makes it clear that 4.4 does not exempt a request from needing to meet the usual ARIN policies, but that it is instead of "add on" you can use to get access to the reserved pool rather than having to go to the waitlist.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>“[Critical Internet Infrastructure] includes Internet Exchanges, IANA-authorized root servers, ccTLD operators, ARIN and IANA”</div><div><br></div><div>- 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?</div><div>----</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I support expanding 4.4 to include gTLD operators for gTLDs that were allocated prior to 2012 (when the number of limited use gTLDs exploded). Alternatively, we could restrict it to operators of gTLDs that are generally available to a large number of registrants and have some minimum number of registered domains. Regardless of either of these options, considering ccTLDs "Critical Internet Infrastructure" but not ".com" is rather silly in my opinion.<br><br><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Thank you and we look forward to your feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Chris Woodfield and Bill Herrin</div><div>ARIN Advisory Council</div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>ARIN-PPML</div><div>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</div><div>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</div><div>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</div><div><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></div><div>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><div><span></span></div></body></html>