Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM

Mike Silber silber.mike at
Wed Jun 30 10:02:21 UTC 2021

Hi Sylvain

> On 29 Jun 2021, at 19:12, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at> wrote:


You may recall this proposal (which was abandoned) [thanks Mike for the reminder to go look for it]:

It was briefly discussed on the RPD list:

> you are suggesting that certain entities would be able to obtain resources directly from the IANA? Does this not make either the IANA or the recipient a type of non-regional-RIR? In which case it would need to follow the process outlined in ICP-2.



> know, that might be part of the implementation aspects. It's not necessary to have it as part that kind of draft! but following your reflection on that

> point, yes i can say that it keeps the door

> open to an implementation on which we

> could end up with one GIR (Global

> Internet Registry). Other possibilities exist

> ...the Internet Numbers Registry System

> allows them; but, again i see it as an

> implementation issue for this kind of

> global DPP's idea.


This has been suggested and abandoned (see above).

> fact, some of the criteria of ICP-2 [*]

> are not applicable to a GIR as mentioned.

> If ratified, as a global policy, a global DPP

> with a similar spirit will be implemented.

> How? the implementer shall decide... :-)

I am not sure it is that simple. IMO the suggestion would require ICP-2 to be revised before the option could be entertained. A suggestion made by Douglas Onyango in 2018.


> know, that is not my primary

> interest, i just wanted to point that:

> global issues should be traithed globally. If the problem is to offer better means to

> orgs like CDNs or DDOS firewalls...then

> it could be simpler to follow the global PDP.


There is no global PDP. As Owen pointed out, there are regional PDPs which need to coalesce into a uniform policy to become global policy.

I also think that convenience for CDNs or DDOS firewalls is not the main objective of global policy :-)


> I would need to see a fleshed out proposal with a lot more detail before I express an opinion, however I do agree that my initial knee-jerk reaction that this is not global policy may not have been correct.



> Owen, are you ready now? brother you

> are the one who enlightened that global

> issue...


Maybe look at Owen’s 2018 response here:


> I am also not sure that such a proposal would pass a sanity check under ICP-2 or the ASO MoU with ICANN, but happy to comment once there is more detail provided.



> ...if processed, it should have to simply

> follow the global PDP ;-)

Not if it does not comply with ICP-2, in which case the amendment of ICP-2 would be a necessary starting point. Happy to debate if that would need to happen before the policy could pass, or would be an implementation step as part of the policy, or would require a separate policy.



> Needless to say, I think the prospects of such a proposal becoming global policy are slim to none, but not bad as a thought experiment.



> ...if you elaborate on the exact barriers

> you expect it could encounter, then i will

> be glad to share my thougths about.

See the links I referenced above. Maybe start with the comments from LACNIC staff.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list