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 <dlilipk2204@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!