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.