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

[rpd] A question for the PDWG

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Tue May 24 17:45:18 UTC 2022

Hi Mike

On 24/05/2022 12:33, Mike Silber wrote:
> <clip>
> Valid points - but the document does not provide any form of ongoing 
> compliance report and there is no compliance authority who could 
> revoke recognition.
It does not need to.
ICANN Board is entitled to recognize the new RIR in the basis of ICP-2 
and as such is entitled to stop recognizing it it the RIR stops to 
adhere to the same principles in the document. It is free to do it as an 
>> 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].
That's the point I tried to put here. ICANN as an organization may 
recognize any other organization it likes or not.

It doesn't have the power to do or change anything inside that other 
organization, however it is free to stop recognize that other 
organization as a RIR and the Board may do that at any time. It doesn't 
need to be in the bylaws, written on stone or anywhere else. And yes, 
other organization, as other RIRs and PTI may do the same, with the last 
one do it based on an eventual ICANN decision to stop recognizing a RIR 
as as valid one.


> Mike
>> Fernando
>> On 24/05/2022 11:51, Mike Silber wrote:
>>> Hi Jordi
>>>> On 24 May 2022, at 16:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
>>>> <jordi.palet at> 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.
>>> Regards
>>> Mike
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list