<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:08 PM Chris Woodfield <<a href="mailto:cwoodfield@gmail.com">cwoodfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);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.<br><br>The current draft text can be found on ARIN’s policy page here:<br><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5/</a><br><br>Below are the points in the current proposed policy text that we’d like to get community feedback on. <br></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br>----<br>Under 4.4, Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) Allocations:</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>[ clip ]</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br>“[Critical Internet Infrastructure] includes Internet Exchanges, IANA-authorized root servers, ccTLD operators, ARIN and IANA”<br><br>- 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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>These leading questions seem well suited to rewriting the 14th amendment, but I digress:</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif"><font size="2"><span>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.<span></span></span></font><span><font size="2"> </font></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif"><span><font size="2"><br></font></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif"><span><font size="2">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. </font></span>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? <span><font size="2">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.</font><span></span></span></p>
</div><div><br></div><div>Here's who has benefitted from CI:</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">V4: <a href="https://pastebin.com/Sec5dPrz">https://pastebin.com/Sec5dPrz</a></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">V6: <a href="https://pastebin.com/dthW7TsN">https://pastebin.com/dthW7TsN</a></div><div><br></div><div>Not too bad!</div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br></div>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.<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br></div><div>+1 for routing these prefixes. All or none as well. It was never the intent of the policy.</div><div><br></div><div>Warm regards,</div><div><br></div><div>-M<</div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br></div></div>