nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 22:00:19 -0800
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:18 AM John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:
The ASO AC has drafted a document which outlines the principles for the proposed ICP-2 Version 2 policy, and this document is available online for review here - https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/proposed-icp-2-version-2-principles/
Two thoughts: 1. The proposed principles fail to speak to one of the issues debated on NANOG this week, specifically jurisdictional resistance to political sanction. It seems to me that an RIR should be expected to locate itself in a legal jurisdiction where they're unlikely to be ordered to alter service that is within their territory but outside of that legal jurisdiction. Moreover, it seems to me that they should routinely monitor the local and regional legal environments and maintain contingency plans for relocation in the event of adverse changes. To the extent that the ICP offers ICANN authority over the number system, ICANN must do the same. ICANN cannot have final authority over the establishment of new RIRs should it come to operate in a jurisdiction whose governance would restrict recognition. I respectfully point out that he who shall not be named has made numerous campaign promises about changes to the system of law under which ICANN operates. The threat is not imminent, but it's there. 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. Although I generally favor geographic restriction as a matter of practice, perhaps it would be better to require unanimous assent to permit an RIR to operate with an overlapping territory. If the ICP does adopt the rule, it should apply only to number registration and should not restrict the RIRs from offering other services on a global basis. For example, RIPE RIS is not geographically bound and would be of little utility if it was. Nor was the ARIN policy and actions authorizing the release of IPv4 address space for RFC 6598 geographically bound. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
Current thread:
- Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 John Curran (Nov 16)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 babydr DBA James W. Laferriere (Nov 16)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 William Herrin (Nov 16)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 David Conrad via NANOG (Nov 17)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 William Herrin (Nov 17)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 Noah (Nov 17)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 William Herrin (Nov 17)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 heasley (Nov 18)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 Noah (Nov 18)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 Noah (Nov 19)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 John Sweeting (Nov 19)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 David Conrad via NANOG (Nov 17)
