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

[rpd] Board Prerogatives on the PDP - AFPUB-2020-GEN-004-DRAFT02

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Jul 27 03:54:19 UTC 2021

> On Jul 26, 2021, at 19:07 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at> wrote:


> On 26/07/2021 22:36, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:


>>> As defined in the ICP-2, Afrinic must operate according to a Bottom-up self-governance structure for setting local policies, and which explicitly states that :

>>> “Policies are developed by the community through the PDP that is also developed by the same community. AFRINIC implements what the community has proposed, discussed and attained consensus on.”


>> ICP-2 governs the creation and acceptance of new RIRs into the RIR system. It has no material bearing on the RIR once it has been accepted into the RIR system, so quoting it here is not particularly meaningful.

> Once again this is not correct information. Those reading it please consider it as simply Owen personal point of view.

> It simply make zero sense to say the above given what ICP-2 means including after the creation of the RIR. It's not something to use one-off an be trashed right after as easy as said.

Where, exactly do you get this idea from?

ICP-2 is literally titled “Critera for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries”.

It goes on to state in the 2 paragraph preamble offered by ICANN:
IMPORTANT NOTICE. The following Internet Coordination Policy is being posted for the information of the Internet community. It contains a statement of policy followed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in administering the system for allocation and assignment of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

This document was developed through ICANN's Address Supporting Organization (ASO) with the assistance of APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC, was recommended by the ASO's Address Council, and on 4 June 2001 was accepted by the ICANN Board of Directors <> as a statement of essential requirements for the recognition of new Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), in supplementation to section 9 of the ASO-Memorandum of Understanding, and acknowledged it as a framework for consideration of applications for recognition of new RIRs.

This is a clear statement that it is a framework for consideration of applications for recognition of new RIRs.

The Abstract states:
This document details criteria for establishment of new Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which may be delegated responsibility for management of Internet resources within a given region of the globe.

The RIRs which currently share global responsibility for Internet resource management (that is, APNIC, ARINand RIPE NCC) have developed this document cooperatively, in response to a request from ICANN. As requested, this document provides criteria and guidelines specifically for ICANN to take into account when evaluating applications for recognition of new RIRs.

Again clarifying that this document is strictly about establishing new RIRs.

Once established, RIRs are self-governing through their respective membership and community governance processes. The community and membership are free to amend those processes as they see fit and ICANN has zero authority to do anything to any RIR with respect to these actions.

If you believe I am wrong about this, please point to a specific citation of any actual binding policy document that says so. Nothing in ICP-2 talks about what happens AFTER the recognition of a new RIR by the IANA (currently operated by ICANN).

> Just think for a minute that a key condition to create a new RIR is that have bottom-up self-governance structure. Then it passed and on the day after it doesn't have that anymore. What sense does it have at all ? Simply none!


Well, not exactly.

It requires a “Bottom-up self governance structure for setting local policies” at the time of recognition.

It does not mandate that structure to continue and it does not say that structure has to extend to corporate governance.

Only local number resource registry policies are specified in this text (section 3 ICP-2).

You, yourself stated that ICP-2 specifies this as a key condition to CREATE (actually, this is wrong, it is a key condition to RECOGNIZE) a new RIR. There is no language in ICP-2 that requires this condition to persist beyond creation. The self-governance process of the community is assumed to be adequate to protect the community’s rights in this regard. If the community chooses an alternative process, they are free to do so. ICANN does have the authority to control the community in this regard and ICP-2 is not a document about controlling the behavior of the community or of RIRs. It is a document about the procedure and requirements ICANN must follow when recognizing a new RIR.

If you think that ICP-2 applies after creation, then please explain what should be done about AFRINIC’s utter and total failure to meet its obligations under section 9 of ICP-2 after its inception.

Further, section 10 of ICP-2 makes no provision for hand-over of the data in question in response to lawful subpoena or other government requirement. As such, since there is no language about severability, if it were considered a set of requirements for RIRs to follow after inception, it would likely be invalid by the laws of most jurisdictions. Certainly section 10, if not the entire document.

Continuing to hang your hat and your argument on inaccurate statements about the content of ICP-2 makes no sense. Simply none!


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

More information about the RPD mailing list