<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Hello</p>
    <p>With regards the possible usage expansion of these micro
      allocations to sTLDs as suggested I am strongly against it. The
      amount of these operators has grown significantly after ICANN
      opened door for so many that could be a missusage of resources if
      this privileged was given to them. Also it doesn't seem to me they
      should be considered "core DNS service providers" and after all
      these are normally business focused on specific and localized
      interests rather than broad and/or community interests so they
      should have means to get the space they need to run these
      services.</p>
    <p>Regarding the Internet Exchange allocations I normally don't see
      a big problem with routing part of the space that is used for
      other things other than the LAN (for example for User Portal,
      Looking Glass hosting, etc), but here it comes a dilemma.<br>
      Imagine the RIR have to assign a exclusive /24 for a new smaller
      IXP and they will have usage for only 4 or 5 IP addresses for
      hosting its basic stuff. That would be a major waste. And another
      /24 for the LAN which is fine. So an IXP would always consume a
      /23 while 50% is known to be probably wasted, unless properly
      justified.<br>
      Having alternatives and considering the growth of IXPS, for this
      hosting part whatever scarce resources are available should be
      privileged for the LANs. Therefore it becomes harder to agree 100%
      on that, though I see the point and justifications and would like
      to see other's opinions on this point.</p>
    <p>Fernando<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/02/2025 19:31, Martin Hannigan
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMDXq5OGh_kut8KPfwVH_Wj1WRB5dNw45ojxYt1PNce9T9heew@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <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" moz-do-not-send="true"
              class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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" moz-do-not-send="true"
                class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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" moz-do-not-send="true"
            class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://pastebin.com/Sec5dPrz</a></div>
        <div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">V6: <a
            href="https://pastebin.com/dthW7TsN" moz-do-not-send="true"
            class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
      <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>