Dear NRO NC, On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 12:30:20PM +0000, herve.clement@orange.com wrote:
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, we cannot extend the current deadline for this first version of the draft “RIR Governance Document”, because the NRO NC will work on the feedback received at the upcoming ICANN meeting taking place in Prague from 9-12 June. We (and supporting RIR and ICANN staff) need time to go through the feedback and prepare for these discussions.
I requested for the deadline to be extended because I believe new information came to light which is important for all stakeholders and warrants futher dialogue. Specifically, information shared in recent days by well-regarded members of our community. We now have a situation in which RIR & ICANN staff might deliberate using information which might contain excellent points or inadvertent errors. Who is to say? The consultation was closed despite a request for an extension. Am I correct in understanding that the 9-12 June deliberations are not open to the public? If so, it will be impossible to understand how comments offered in this review phase impact reasoning and decision making on the next draft. My confidence in this process is faltering. I believe the NC is representing the RIRs, not the community. So who is representing the community in this all? The community shared feedback, some of which does not beat around the bush in pointing out flaws in the draft proposal. But you just now told the community the microphone queue has been cut off and to come back in a few months. Where does that leave the community?
This will not be your last chance to comment. This 43 day consultation period is equivalent to the four-week discussion phase in the PDP, and is part of a longer process that started in October last year.
I don't view it as the equivalent. In the RIPE PDP it would be considered highly unusual to dismiss a reasonable request to extend a deadline. Adherence to deadlines more important than valuable dialogue? REALLY??! Hervé - you as *CHAIR* of the NRO NC certainly have the remit to adjust deadlines as needed. If you - as chair - do not feel you have the organizational ability to extend the comment period, that would be cause for grave concern. Do you feel it is not within your power to extend deadlines in this process? Hervé, why did you choose to not extend the current deadline? Are you absolutely certain this is how you'd like lead the collective deliberative process?
There will be another consultation once the next draft is published in the later half of this year. This will be discussed at RIR and other meetings after the summer, as well as on mailing lists:
- APNIC 60: 4-11 September, Da Nang, Vietnam - Africa Internet Summit: 15-19 September, Ghana - LACNIC 44: 6-10 October, San Salvador, El Salvador - RIPE 91: 20-24 October, Bucharest, Romania - ICANN 84: 25-30 October, Muscat, Oman - ARIN 56: 30-31 October, Arlington, USA
Another cycle of review may be required if the feedback indicates that substantial changes are required to the final draft. This could result in the timeline being extended before the process moves to the Approval phase.
I'm increasingly concerned with these proceedings and question whether they represents a "bottom-up process". Kind regards, Job