Re: [ripe-list] Re: Consultation on Draft “Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of Regional Internet Registries”
Dear Job and the rest of the RIPE Community, As others have commented, it was necessary to close the consultation on the previously stated end date in order to provide the ASO AC with enough time to digest all the feedback received and get to work beginning at ICANN 83 (June 9-12) on a revised version of the RIR Governance Document. That said, if anyone still wishes to provide feedback, they can always approach any member of the ASO AC in person or by email. And if anyone wishes to provide a public response to feedback that was previously published to any of the RIR mailing lists during the consultation, they may continue to do so. The RIPE consultation was conducted over the main ripe-list@ripe.net mailing list, which remains open for discussions on ICP-2 and other topics. However, because the official consultation has closed and because the ASO AC has already begun digesting the feedback received to date, we cannot make any firm commitments about how much attention we can give such new feedback in the short term. But rest assured that we will eventually consider all feedback we receive at any time. We hope this addresses the concerns that were expressed. With best regards, Nick Nugent (ASO AC Vice Chair) -----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 6:25 AM To: ripe-list@ripe.net Subject: [ripe-list] Re: Consultation on Draft “Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of Regional Internet Registries” On 29/05/2025 0:11, Job Snijders wrote: Dear all, The timeline as published: https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/process-for-the-re... covers a period of 2 years (2024 & 2025). At the end of step 7 (after Oct 31, 2025) they state "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 step 8." I am sure the committee would have no problem adding another 3-4 weeks into the process but probably their fear is that this can spiral into never-ending requests to add more time, all the while, the issue becomes critical and time contingent. Regards, Hank
Dear all,
I recognize that my previous posting might be perceived as uncharismatic, sorry, I'll try to do better. Here goes:
A process for review was established with a specific timeline for discussion ("a period of approximately 6 weeks" [1]). It was perhaps hard to foresee how many comments would appear and when they'd appear.
An issue I perceive is that the current schedule could end up leaving little to no room for people to respond to other people's comments - if such comments were made at the last moment.
Now, the next phase is scheduled to be the "Final Review", it'll be awkward if that's the next best moment to react to comments made in the previous phase "Community Feedback on the Draft Document". Worse, what if yet again comments are submitted at the very last moment?
It might simultanously make people feel unheard and increase complexity for the document authors!
I hope I now have clarified why I requested a deadline extension.
Perhaps going forward, we can take some inspiration from the FCC's "Notice of Inquiry" process. A simplistic overview from what I understand the NoI process to be: review cycles are composed of a "comments period" (~ 1 month), then a "reply to comments period" (~ 1 month), and then deliberations. The scope of the "reply to comments" period is intended to be narrower than the scope of the comments period preceeding it.
I believe that an opportunity to comment on other people's comments in such a way that this feedback too becomes part of the public concourse and subsequent ASO AC deliberations will positively help all involved navigating this process and result in an higher quality document.
The work the various representatives and volunteers are doing is valuable and I'd like to express appreciation for what has been accomplished so far. I'd specifically like to say thank you for your service to Hervé, Constanze, and Andrei.
Kind regards,
Job
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250402040928/https://www.nro.net/policy/ internet-coordination-policy-2/process-for-the-review-of-icp-2-and-tim eline/ ----- 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/
Dear Noah, The AFRINIC ICP-2 Review webinar (recording is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKxyUB5APkk) was attended by 91 participants in total (78 on zoom and 13 on AFRINIC's YouTube channel). As far as I know, it was also publicized on various AFRINIC community lists as well as other community mailing lists within the region. I am not sure which blocked mailing lists you are referring to, but the AFRINIC ICP-2 Review mailinglist received feedback from several people (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/icp2-review/). I assure you that all input is being recorded and will be carefully considered by the NRO NC in preparing the next version of the draft document. Regards, Andrei NRO NC member, speaking for myself Noah wrote on 28/05/2025 23:51:
There have been some webinars here and there where very few members of the afrinic community participated since community mailing lists were blocked.
I am curious to know what inputs have been picked up from the afrinic community if any considering the wide lack of participation by the African community in this entire process under current circumstances.
Cheers, *.**/noah* * *
On Wed, 28 May 2025, 10:32 pm John Curran, <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
> On May 28, 2025, at 11:53 AM, Job Snijders <job@sobornost.net> wrote: > ... > I believe the NC is representing the RIRs, not the community.
Job –
The assertion that the NRO NC is representing the RIRs rather than the community isn’t correct, as the NRO Number Council is predominantly composed of community-elected representatives.
Each of the five RIRs provides two elected members and one appointed member, meaning a full two-thirds are selected by the community through open and transparent regional elections that offer any eligible member of the RIR community a chance to run and/or vote for the chosen candidate. i.e. the NRO NC is very much the community’s body for global numbers policy.
(It is important to distinguish the NRO NC from the NRO EC – the latter of which could indeed be characterized as “representing the RIRs,” in so much as it serves to coordinate various joint RIR activities necessary for consistent global number registry operations.)
As Hervé noted, the NRO NC established the consultation timeline to allow sufficient time for review and deliberation at the upcoming ICANN meeting – and this consultation is only one segment of a broader, ongoing process that began in October 2023. There will be further opportunities for community engagement on the document and the NRO NC is now clearly aware that there may be substantial issues that were only raised in the final days of the consultative period and to use appropriate care in that regard when making any updates.
(One could even imagine that they might make no refinements to the present draft in light of your concern about submissions in the final days and inability to fully respond, but I do hope this is not the case – as I expect there’s likely at least some areas where there has been ample community input and that at least some additional clarity and progress can be made in those areas.)
Thanks, /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
----- 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/
participants (2)
-
Andrei Robachevsky -
Nicholas Nugent