Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

Bill-

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.



Can you point to a specific legislative proposal, action, or legal
cases/filings that could lead to :

1. Grant the power to force a state registered public benefit corporation
to enter a legal agreement with the US federal government?
2. Grant the federal government the authority to direct the actions of a
state registered public benefit corporation?

In the absence of either , I strongly dispute there is a 'threat' ,
imminent or otherwise.


On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 1:03 AM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

> 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/