Search RPD Archives
[rpd] A question for the PDWG
silber.mike at gmail.com
Tue May 24 15:33:51 UTC 2022
> On 24 May 2022, at 17:21, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Mike
> I don´t know who invented thins thing of ICP-2 not applicable to any RIRs after its creating as it became a lawless organization that can do anything they like regardless all the rest of worldwide Internet community.
No one invented anything …. it is there in writing. Please point to specifics if you disagree.
I agree with you in concept, but that is not what any of the documentation says.
> What is the sense to requiring some quiet strict and strong principles like Bottom-up self-governance and after the creating of a RIR it can transform itself in whatever they like contrary to those principles and trash away the everything that was mandatory for its creation at 23:59h ? It is like stimulating an anarchic system and put in danger the interests of a large amount of people.
> Maye it is very comfortable for some people in control for some RIRs to go into that direction as they would feel more comfortable to do whatever they like unsupervised but it doesn't work like that.
Valid points - but the document does not provide any form of ongoing compliance report and there is no compliance authority who could revoke recognition.
> Bottom-up governance means members and community, actual Internet actors, potential new actors and its users, not only members and the balance between a Board which is basically membership and its PDP which is community is always a wise thing.
> Any RIR that eventually doesn't comply with ICP-2 should be brought up to spot, and discussions should be raised in ICANN up to it Board as well in all other RIRs in order to stop recognizing that RIR.
The ICANN Board can only act in terms of the ICANN bylaws. There is nothing in the ICANN bylaws that empowers it to take any action against an RIR “gone rogue”.
The only action I could see is for the the NRO to stop recognising the RIR. It could alsorequest PTI to not issue any new resources to that RIR [which I don’t think would be valid].
> On 24/05/2022 11:51, Mike Silber wrote:
>> Hi Jordi
>>> On 24 May 2022, at 16:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es>> wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> While this is debatable, the parts of the bylaws that are broken, where already broken when those bylaws were created in order to constitute AFRINIC to comply with the ICP-2.
>> I don’t see any basis for debate here. Once an RIR is established - ICP-2 essentially ceases to have any legal or compliance relevance and simply has moral guidance.
>>> As a consequence, the recognition of AFRINIC could be declared invalid, because *was not* complying with “3) Bottom-up self-governance structure for setting local policies”.
>> Respectfully, there is no basis for any such declaration of invalidity? Who would declare it invalid: ICANN or a court? If a court - in which jurisdiction? If ICANN - based on what provision of the ICANN by-laws?
>> Please give a real example of how such declaration of invalidity - otherwise this is just FUD.
>>> I will prefer not to go that direction, but this means that broken thins should be fixed, not ignored by the Board every time we come to the same conclusions. I guess you (others) will agree with me that it is necessary to fix whatever is found broken?
>> Quite happy to agree that the bylaws can be improved, but it has nothing to do with ICP-2.
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD