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 <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:18 AM John Curran <jcurran@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
bill@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/