[rpd] A question for the PDWG

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi David

On 24/05/2022 14:39, David Conrad wrote:
> Fernando,
>
> On May 24, 2022, at 8:21 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The title of ICP-2 is "Criteria for Establishment of New Regional 
> Internet Registries”.  It explicitly states "this document provides 
> criteria and guidelines specifically for ICANN to take into account 
> when evaluating applications for recognition of new RIRs.”  It does 
> not speak to maintaining RIR status after creation.
Sorry, but it doesn't make sense at all. It is like having to pass a 
drive license exam based on several pre-established criteria and after 
you get you license you are not bound to any law or rules which you may 
decide yourself.
If an organization is recognized by other, based on a pre established 
document made by itself, it may very well stop recognizing it at any 
point in time if that organization stop to adhere to those principles.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> See RFC 7020. ICANN is not the Internet’s police.  It is largely a 
> venue in which people can meet to develop resource 
> allocation/management policy under a multi-stakeholder framework. The 
> theory is that the RIR system works only on trust and the "consent of 
> the governed.”  Evolution of the RIR system is presumed to be driven 
> by the stakeholders impacted by the RIR within the context of the RIR 
> (for regional) or ICANN (for global) multi-stakeholder framework.

This thing about "Internet police" is one of the most meaningless terms 
used when scenarios where some doesn't like the potential of another 
intervene in their business. But that's not the point. First that ICANN 
would not be forcing another organization to do anything legally, but 
just in its own right stop recognizing an organization as a valid RIR 
and according to its own judgment, principles and guidelines. Other 
organizations may do that same and that organization may be left 
isolated for the protection of the rest of the community affect.

Look, that potential RIR may still keep existing as an organization, but 
the different is that not being recognized as a RIR anymore it will not 
have a point to exist in the ecosystem anymore. That's why ICANN doesn't 
act as police in those terms.

RFC 7020 establish guidelines for Internet Numbers Registry System, 
therefore to RIRs that are recognized into that ecosystem. If a RIR 
stops to being recognized by other organizations it doesn't apply for them.
In my personal view RFC 7020 was a mistake in some points and ended up 
serving to reinforce a more centralized authority of each recognized 
RIRs without having to render accounts to any review body that could 
balance and mediate conflicts that may have relation to the shared 
resources it managed and are assigned by PTI nowadays and IANA in the past.

>
> More to the point, suppose despite no policy, process, or authority, 
> magic occurs and ICANN were to “stop recognizing that RIR”.  What 
> impact do you believe that would have on the consumers/users of 
> address space? Do you believe ISPs or address users consult ICANN 
> prior to making use of address space?
That's also a political movement . If ICANN stops to recognize a RIR as 
such many other organizations, not only other RIR, PTI, etc, but Network 
Operators may stop also to do and that's how it should really be. Others 
that may choose to keep recognizing and nobody knows which side of the 
scale it would end up.

Bottom line is that ICANN has the right to stop recognizing any other 
organization by its own guidelines that doesn't adhere to certain 
principles and may cause damage to the Internet ecosystem and that has 
nothing to do with intervene in another organization. The end result in 
unforeseeable.

>
> (Note: I am not arguing this is good or bad, just that it is reality)
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>