Hi Tom Thanks your comment, please see last email in the mailing list, I think my options has also address some of your point.
Let me quote it here again earlier for your reference Thanks ///// 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 11:44 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > ICP-2 defines the criteria by which a new RIR is established. It is not > numbering policy. > > ICANN cannot force numbering policy decisions on the RIRs. They can > suggest, but each RIR ratifies their own policies based on their own PDP. > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 8:59 AM Dilip Kounmany <dlilipk2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello NANOG community, >> >> I’d like to share my thoughts on the ongoing discussion regarding the ICP-2 >> revision, particularly the importance of the “Portability of Rights to >> Number Resources.” >> >> ICP-2 is essential for guiding Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in >> managing IP addresses globally. As we consider revisions, I believe that >> ensuring the portability of IP resources should be a hard requirement. This >> means networks should have the right to move their IP resources between RIRs >> without undue restrictions. >> >> Portability is crucial for maintaining network autonomy, allowing operators >> to control their resources independently of any single RIR. It also promotes >> competition among RIRs, incentivizing them to improve service quality and >> accountability. >> >> Additionally, if an RIR’s performance negatively impacts a network's >> operation, there should be a clear mechanism for portability, similar to DNS >> registries. This would serve as a necessary safety net for networks facing >> operational issues. >> >> As we move forward, let’s advocate for these changes in the ICP-2 policy to >> foster a more resilient and accountable Internet governance framework. >> >> I look forward to hearing your thoughts! >> >>
