[Icp2-review] ICP2 OPINION

[Benjamin Mutemi]

Accountability must be possible before collapse
At present, the only explicit reference to a community-triggered
investigation is the extremely high ICANN audit threshold. It is hard to
argue that this is meaningfully community-accessible. If a Board becomes
non-responsive, or its interpretive stance shifts into something more
extractive or defensive, the community has no procedural foothold until the
fire has already consumed the room.
The proposal here is simply to prevent “late-stage pathology”. A
Member-initiated compliance review allows mid-range correction.
If 5% of Members — or 100 Members (the lower of the two) — sign a petition,
the NRO Executive Council must perform a compliance review of that RIR’s
governance conduct against both the global governance document and the
RIR’s own corporate requirements.
The RIR must cooperate — data, documents, reasoning, evidence.
The NRO EC must publish the results.
If sustained failures are identified, the NRO EC may recommend corrective
measures which can include censure of directors and/or a recommendation
that the community consider removal under that RIR’s own bylaws. There is
no bypassing the RIR’s local constitution — but there must be a bridge
between nothing — and derecognition.
This makes accountability real rather than rhetorical.
Portability is infrastructure neutrality, not a “commercial perk”
There is still no IPv6 inter-RIR transfer regime at all. AFRINIC has no
inter-RIR transfer regime for v4. The current system can thus be described
— bluntly — as territorial. One global namespace, fractured by
administrative regional non-interoperability.
The telephone number portability analogy is apt: people should not be
punished for switching operator, geography, or both.
Thus Article 4.1 should contain an obligation that each RIR must support
the portability of Internet Number Resources (IPv4 and IPv6) across both
providers and regions, with only necessary stewardship exceptions — i.e.
genuine registry integrity guard-rails.
In addition, it must not be lawful for an RIR to refuse a transfer merely
because the Member declines newly-inserted RSA language.
A global registry is either global — or it isn’t. Portability is the line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/icp2-review/attachments/20251106/d2e253b3/attachment-0001.html>