<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello Martin</p>
<p>I know they are different and why I tried to differentiate them
in my previous reply although I didn't mention gTLDs specifically,
so it was implicit. Still with the limitation of being in the ARIN
region I don't see enough justification to guarantee them these
resources and in order to prevent abuses it would be good to
mention specifically in a way that leaved no margin for doubt.</p>
<p>With regards the IXP usage I reiterate my point when part of
these resources are used for IXP hosting stuff there will be a
major waste as on any IXP there will not be enough justification
for a entire /24 for this part which is the minimum routable. I
understand that is part of the IXP infrastructure, but at the end
it is known that will be a waste of most of that /24</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/02/2025 17:19, Martin Hannigan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMDXq5NnvE2ZjzkzhPipmUQHcnqqGh5fw4BC5NnoCh+cfiPuWA@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 Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at
10:45 AM Fernando Frediani <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">fhfrediani@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 dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"> Hello
<br>
<br>
With regards to 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 the doors for so many
that could be a misuse of resources if this privilege
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.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Fernando, s/TLD's are different from g/TLD. The former is
closed and controlled. The latter is open. s/TLD can also
operate open like g/TLD and has as time progresses. The
g/TLD has more root.zone entries than the s/TLD by far.
They're also limited by being required to be "in the ARIN
region" per the update which reduces s/TLD to almost nothing
beneficiary wise. I can think of a bunch of nitpicks, but
based on the data shared seems not worth it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The s/TLD did expand although I believe slightly when
ICANN opened up the TLD's not the cc) to commercial
operations. g/TLD have already been able to use the policy.
However, the URL's to the data I linked shows (I believe)
that DNS hosting companies are using the policy. This was a
better outcome than "fear of the unknown" which partly drove
the original policy. I'm not sure it matters to
differentiate cc/s/g for this policy proposal (or the last
one) but I would argue there isn't a need to make changes to
something that works IMHO. Hope that helps to clear up. If
we wanted to be clear and concise, TLD would say the same
thing. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I see nothing wrong with the IXP uses. The intent
language is a shiny object. No argument here to take it out.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warm regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-M<</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>