<!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>