Hi Nanog Community To further elaborate my opinions towards the ICP-2 questionnaire. I could like to share more my thoughts and insights
1. ICP-2 Guides RIR Operations, Not Just Establishment While it’s true that ICP-2 defines the criteria for establishing new RIRs, it also serves as a foundational policy document that ensures consistency and cooperation among all RIRs. It is not limited to the act of creating RIRs—it provides principles that guide their governance and operations. Portability directly relates to these operational principles, as it ensures users can continue to rely on the RIR system regardless of where their resources are managed. Portability is not about dictating numbering policy; it’s about setting a baseline operational standard that all RIRs should meet to maintain trust and interoperability across regions. By making portability a hard requirement under ICP-2, we enhance the foundational framework that governs the relationship between users and RIRs. 2. ICANN’s Role is to Safeguard Global Internet Stability ICANN’s role is to safeguard the stability, security, and interoperability of the global Internet. Portability aligns with this mandate because it ensures that resource holders are not trapped by a failing or underperforming RIR. If portability is not addressed under ICP-2, the global community risks fragmentation, where RIRs operate inconsistently, undermining the trust and cooperation that ICP-2 seeks to promote. This isn’t about ICANN imposing policies on RIRs; it’s about setting minimum operational criteria that support global continuity. Just as ICP-2 requires RIRs to meet technical and operational benchmarks to gain recognition, it can also mandate portability as a fundamental operational safeguard without interfering with individual RIRs’ PDPs. 3. Precedents Exist for ICANN Setting Baselines Without Overreach There’s precedent for ICANN establishing baseline requirements that ensure the global stability of the Internet ecosystem. For example, in the DNS world, ICANN enforces requirements around portability of domain names between registries, which has proven critical to ensuring users’ trust and the resilience of the system. By defining portability in ICP-2, ICANN would not be mandating how RIRs allocate resources but rather ensuring that if a user chooses to move their resources, they can do so seamlessly. This is a safeguard that respects the autonomy of individual RIRs while ensuring a unified and resilient global Internet framework. 4. Autonomy Doesn’t Mean Isolation While each RIR has its own Policy Development Process (PDP), that autonomy is not meant to create isolated silos. The RIR system operates as a global, cooperative framework. Portability strengthens this cooperation by ensuring that users can move resources across regions when needed without facing artificial barriers. It is consistent with the spirit of ICP-2, which emphasizes collaboration and consistent principles among RIRs. 5. Users’ Rights Must Be Prioritized Ultimately, ICP-2 is about ensuring that RIRs serve the community effectively. If an RIR cannot fulfill its operational duties or if users face challenges, portability ensures that users are not left stranded. This is not a policy decision about how resources are managed—it’s about protecting users’ rights in the broader RIR system. ICANN has a responsibility to ensure that no matter where users choose to manage their resources, they are protected by minimum standards. By framing portability as a safeguard aligned with ICP-2’s operational principles rather than a numbering policy, you highlight how it fits within ICANN’s scope and contributes to the broader goals of stability, cooperation, and user protection. Looking forward for more input. Thanks On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:28 PM William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:18 AM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > The ASO AC process is completely open to input from any interested > > party, as there is a wide range of communities that may want to provide > > input into the process. In some cases, communities may coalesce > > around a single submission and in others (such as I would expect among > > NANOGers) there’s likely to end up being a variety of different views > > submitted by those interested in this topic. > > > > Nothing precludes you from having as much “discussion and debate” as > > you need for the germination of your ideas, but you do not get to > constrain > > others as to how they wish to develop & submit their own ideas into the > process. > > Hi John, > > It seems to me that regulatory capture is just a little bit easier if > the feedback mechanism rewards groups who coalesce around a single > submission and doesn't intrinsically facilitate broad discussion of > the proffered ideas. But, as you say: that's just my opinion. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/ >
