Actually, no, the concern expressed was that the new gTLDs might prematurely exhaust the CI reservation, not the other way around. Note that new gTLDs were specifically excluded from the CI pool by policy:
4.4. Micro-allocation ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no smaller than a /24. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations. Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks reserved only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes. ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available. Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of three total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other organizations receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the ISP fee schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from requesting address space under other policies. ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. This limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to gTLD allocations made under previous policy. <> At the time, the gTLD servers had not yet been consolidated as they currently are and each gTLD was running its own server sets. Today, because of the implementation of *.gtld-servers.net, the framework of this particular policy has become an anachronism. My suggestion would be a non-editorial rewrite of the entire section. Owen > On Jun 23, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > A little history: gTLD and CI policy was intended to be temporary while the > v6 game played out. Exhaustion was the consideration. Prematurely stunting > the "new gTLD" expansion was the concern. The policy was for name servers and > enabling anycast for them. There were grand expectations back then hence > "new". See https://bit.ly/3duaEJc <https://bit.ly/3duaEJc> > > Sticking with the text change, seems like it doesn't matter. Why not just do > it editorially? It doesn't change a thing. > > Warm regards, > > -M< > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM ARIN <i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net>> > wrote: > On 18 June 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-290: > 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_7/ > <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_7/> > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft > policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as > stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these > principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The PDP can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/> > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/> > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification > > Problem Statement: > > The term “new gTLD” is confusing and refers to all gTLD’s that have been > created since June of 2012. > > Policy Statement: > > ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an > IPv4 /23 block for each authorized gTLD, allocated from the free pool or > received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Comments: > > This proposal stems from a suggestion in the January, 2019 Policy > Experience Report. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any > issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
