Bill- To the extent that the ICP offers ICANN authority over the number > system, ICANN must do the same. ICANN cannot have final authority over > the establishment of new RIRs should it come to operate in a > jurisdiction whose governance would restrict recognition. I > respectfully point out that he who shall not be named has made > numerous campaign promises about changes to the system of law under > which ICANN operates. The threat is not imminent, but it's there.
Can you point to a specific legislative proposal, action, or legal cases/filings that could lead to : 1. Grant the power to force a state registered public benefit corporation to enter a legal agreement with the US federal government? 2. Grant the federal government the authority to direct the actions of a state registered public benefit corporation? In the absence of either , I strongly dispute there is a 'threat' , imminent or otherwise. On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 1:03 AM William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:18 AM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > The ASO AC has drafted a document which outlines the principles for the > proposed ICP-2 Version 2 policy, and this document is available online for > review here - > https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/proposed-icp-2-version-2-principles/ > > > Two thoughts: > > 1. The proposed principles fail to speak to one of the issues debated > on NANOG this week, specifically jurisdictional resistance to > political sanction. It seems to me that an RIR should be expected to > locate itself in a legal jurisdiction where they're unlikely to be > ordered to alter service that is within their territory but outside of > that legal jurisdiction. Moreover, it seems to me that they should > routinely monitor the local and regional legal environments and > maintain contingency plans for relocation in the event of adverse > changes. > > To the extent that the ICP offers ICANN authority over the number > system, ICANN must do the same. ICANN cannot have final authority over > the establishment of new RIRs should it come to operate in a > jurisdiction whose governance would restrict recognition. I > respectfully point out that he who shall not be named has made > numerous campaign promises about changes to the system of law under > which ICANN operates. The threat is not imminent, but it's there. > > > 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the > ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. Although I generally > favor geographic restriction as a matter of practice, perhaps it would > be better to require unanimous assent to permit an RIR to operate with > an overlapping territory. If the ICP does adopt the rule, it should > apply only to number registration and should not restrict the RIRs > from offering other services on a global basis. > > For example, RIPE RIS is not geographically bound and would be of > little utility if it was. Nor was the ARIN policy and actions > authorizing the release of IPv4 address space for RFC 6598 > geographically bound. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William Herrin > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/ >
