Since any new RIR would be formed from a region being served by an existing RIR, perhaps Recognition should require unanimous agreement amongst the RIRs not "losing part of their region"  The RIR "losing part of their region" could likely be considered a party with a conflict of interest in this situation even if it supported the creation of a new RIR from within its own boundaries. I'm assuming here that a new RIR would be formed from within the boundaries of a single RIR not more than one as that seems much more likely given the current distribution of RIR regions.  And thus you would be losing a single "vote" between the RIRs in this Recognition process not more than one.  This concept would break down if you tried to create a new RIR from more than one existing RIR since the number of RIRs is small by design. The ICANN approval check after the (RIRs-1) decision would also provide a valuable oversight in the recognition process to ensure that the creation of a new RIR is to the benefit of the _whole_ Internet Registry System and the Internet Community as a whole, and even the existing RIR potentially losing part of its region. Andrew On 4/23/2025 12:33 PM, John Curran wrote:

Osama -

You raise an important point – requiring unanimous consent does present some challenges, but as with any governance mechanism, there are tradeoffs to consider.

While I don’t generally intend to engage in the broader Governance Document discussions (as these matters are rightly being presented for community deliberation), I hadn’t seen a response to your message and I believe you’ve raised an issue that merits serious consideration.  (I must note that neither the ARIN community nor ARIN Board of Trustees have a stated position on this particular issue, so my comments are purely based on my own perspective to help advance this community’s discussion of this important topic and nothing more.)

One could argue that unanimous approval reflects not just existing practice, but “proven code.” Both LACNIC and AFRINIC, the two RIRs approved under ICP-2, were established with the unanimous support of the existing RIRs. That precedent holds some weight, but it’s important to recognize that what worked in the past may not necessarily meet the needs of today or tomorrow. Ideally, we should begin with a clear articulation of current requirements and let that inform how governance structures are shaped (rather than just defaulting to legacy processes.)

In the case of recognizing a new RIR, there are some practical considerations that shouldn’t be overlooked when setting the requirements. By definition, a new RIR would be formed out of a portion of a region currently served by an existing RIR (or RIRs), and thus requires some rather careful coordination to ensure a smooth transition during startup. (This coordination process occurred during both LACNIC and AFRINIC becoming operational and spanned more than a year in each case.)

More broadly, the Internet number registry system depends on close ongoing collaboration between the RIRs for its smooth and cohesive functioning, and this loose coupling for both overall governance and operations is a distinctive feature of the system (when compared to ISPs, DNS registries, or most other elements of the Internet’s infrastructure).

If an RIR found that it could not, in good faith and consistent with its own community’s principles, support the recognition of a proposed RIR, then mandating its approval & support for the new RIR may not lead to a constructive or sustainable outcome. While consensus for recognition is a high bar, it helps mitigate the risk of a “failed RIR recognition” — which could obviously be very problematic for the entire Internet numbers community.

However, I will reiterate that these are truly matters for this community to consider, and that there are very few absolutes here; it’s really just a question of the balancing the tradeoffs to find those that are most suitable for the RIR system going forward.

Thanks! /John

John Curran ($dayjob = CEO of ARIN)

...

On Apr 20, 2025, at 3:36 AM, Osama I. Al-Dosary <dosary@solyton.com> wrote:

Hello

I'm concerned by the unanimity clause under the "recognition" section of the draft. Unanimity is inherently difficult to achieve. It means veto power to existing RIRs, making recognition of a new RIR extremely challenging and potentially suppressing regional interests.

Furthermore, with this unanimity clause, there seems to be an implicit assumption that there will never be a need for a new RIR in the future, or that a new RIR is fundamentally a bad thing. This perspective doesn't account for future developments and emerging needs. A more democratic alternative could be the more common majority vote. Although, an endorsement by existing one or two RIRs could also be effective.

What is the rationale for requiring unanimity (as opposed to a majority vote)?

Thank you

Regards, Osama Al-Dosary dosary@solyton.com

...

On 14 Apr 2025, at 10:35 AM, Ulka Athale <uathale@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC)

The announcement can be viewed at: https://www.nro.net/consultation-on-draft-governance-document-for-the-recogn...

----------------------------------------- The NRO NC has published a draft version of a document that aims to update ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries. This updated document is titled “Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of Regional Internet Registries” (RIR Governance Document) and can be viewed here: https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/rir-governance-doc...

We now invite your input on this draft. Please make sure to share your feedback by Tuesday, 27 May 2025 on your regional consultation list.

----------------------------------------- Background Information ----------------------------------------- In October 2023, the Number Resource Organization Executive Council (NRO EC) asked the NRO Number Council (NRO NC), that fulfils the role of  the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC), to establish and manage a process to update the Internet Coordination Policy (ICP-2): Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries document [1]. Modification of ICP-2 requires an open and transparent process to allow participation from across the global RIR and ICANN communities.

As part of this process, the NRO NC invited the global Regional Internet Registry (RIR)  communities to provide feedback on each principle via a questionnaire, which was open from 8 October until 6 December 2024 [2]. On 24 February 2025, the NRO published a qualitative analysis and summary of the community responses received on the proposed principles to update ICP-2 [3].

The updated criteria will continue to reflect the fundamental principles required for recognizing and evaluating new RIRs in keeping with the Internet landscape of today. There is no intention to fundamentally change or redesign the existing RIR system. The focus of the review and revision process is to identify existing gaps and areas of improvement to support the continued stability and self-governance of the Internet Numbers Registry System. This includes expanding or adding details related to governance, ecosystem, life cycle, recognition and operation of RIRs. It also outlines principles for the potential ‘derecognition’ of an RIR if it fails to adhere to the established criteria.

----------------------------------------- Share Your Input -----------------------------------------

The NRO NC is now seeking community input on the new draft text of the proposed “RIR Governance Document”. This feedback will be reviewed by the NRO NC during their workshop scheduled during ICANN 83 in June.

We ask you to please keep the following in mind while preparing your comments: - Please share feedback that is specific to this draft - We are particularly interested in hearing your views on the new requirements in the draft - Whether the draft provides sufficient clarity regarding the ongoing obligations of an RIR and the remediation steps if the obligations are not met - This document does not address the implementation of the RIR criteria; comments on implementation will be considered out of scope - Constructive comments are highly appreciated

To participate, please follow the consultations in your region listed on the Community Engagements web page: https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/community-engageme...

----------------------------------------- Join a Session ----------------------------------------- All the planned sessions during which we will share information on the draft “RIR Governance Document” and the process to update ICP-2 will be listed on the NRO website. The sessions will also be recorded and archived, links to the recordings will also be listed on the same webpage: https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/community-engageme...

Regards,

The NRO Secretariat

[1] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en [2] https://www.nro.net/the-nro-invites-internet-community-to-participate-in-icp... [3] https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/icp-2-principles-q...

----------------------------------------- For further reference, the timeline and process to review ICP-2 is available here: https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/process-for-the-re...

Kind regards,

Ulka Athale RIPE NCC

www.ripe.net ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

Hi Randy, Thanks for your email and recommendation. And I confirm: after a short presentation the idea of course is to interact. Best, Hervé -----Message d'origine----- De : Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Envoyé : lundi 5 mai 2025 20:41 À : ripe-list@ripe.net Objet : [ripe-list] Re: Consultation on Draft “Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of Regional Internet Registries” there will be a bof on this monday 18:00 WEST. i hope it is a discussion, not a powerpoint flood. but if we want a real discussion, folk must have read the document[0] beforehand, and you may want to review the powerpoint[1] from the zoom meeting. we need to do our homework before class. randy --- [0] https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/rir-governance-doc... [1] https://www.ripe.net/meetings/open-house/updating-icp-2/#download-slides ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

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 -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. 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.