As Jim points out, the concept of requiring “unanimity" is highly problematic.
It’s highly unlikely that the “problem child” is going to vote for its own demise, which means that there’s no way to remove a dysfunctional RIR.
While there are obvious benefits in protecting the status quo, that needs to be balanced against reality ie. If a RIR is not behaving or acting in a manner that is acceptable to the broader Internet community’s interests there should probably be a mechanism
for them to be replaced. It’s not a decision that could or would be taken lightly, but the current requirement for unanimity makes that impossible.
Regards
Michele
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Date: Thursday, 24 April 2025 at 11:28
To: Osama I. Al-Dosary <dosary@solyton.com>
Cc: ripe-list@ripe.net <ripe-list@ripe.net>
Subject: [ripe-list] Re: Consultation on Draft “Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of Regional Internet Registries”
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
On 20 Apr 2025, at 08:36, Osama I. Al-Dosary <dosary@solyton.com> wrote:
What is the rationale for requiring unanimity (as opposed to a majority vote)?
AFAICT, the ICP-2 draft wisely says nothing about votes. This is how it should be. I* decides by consensus.
The requirement for unanimity is wrong IMO. First, it gives an RIR a veto: for instance the one that's going to lose members and resources to the new RIR. That's not a good look. Second,
it smells too much of a cartel. That is likely to raise concerns from governments and regulators: eg anti-trust, market abuse or monopoly considerations. The RIRs shouldn't choose to sleepwalk their way into that geopolitical swamp. I wonder too if the authors
of ICP-2 have taken legal advice about the implications of those references to unanimity.
Requiring unanimity may well be impractical too. I doubt it's wise to assume the RIRs will always agree with each other*. Or will never (mis)use their veto power as a bargaining chip.
And then there's the possibility an RIR somehow fails and isn't in a position to vote. Suppose this draft ICP-2 was in effect and appointing a new RIR was the only way to replace the one that had failed.
The doc needs further work. IMO the references to unanimity should be replaced with "consensus decision". Obviously. a definition of consensus would need to be added too.
* When I was on the NCC board ~20 years ago, the RIRs couldn't reach agreement on where the NRO would be incorporated or even if it should be incorporated.