Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
NANOGers - In October 2023, the Number Resource Organization initiated a process to undertake a significant update to Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP-2); the policy which specifies the criteria for establishing new Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has been tasked with managing the revision process, emphasizing community engagement and transparency. 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-ver... The ASO AC is actively seeking feedback from the Internet number resource community and the broader internet community on these proposed principles. At this stage, comments are being solicited on the principles themselves, rather than specific amendments to the text of the document. This collaborative approach aims to refine the principles before drafting a revised version of ICP-2 for further stakeholder input. To facilitate community engagement, there is a questionnaire seeking feedback that available in multiple languages, including English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. The questionnaire is designed to gather diverse perspectives and can be completed in approximately 7–10 minutes. Recognizing the importance of comprehensive community input, the deadline for input has via the questionnaire has been extended to 6 December 2024. If you have an interest in the governance principles that should be applicable to RIRs, and a moment available to provide input, please consider doing so. More details about the principles and questionnaire are available on the NRO website - https://www.nro.net/nro-announces-that-the-deadline-for-the-icp-2-questionna... Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
Hello John , I notice an entry without definition within the first document . "Anti-Capture: An RIR must maintain governance rules and controls to prevent itself from becoming captured." Might be nice to either further explain this term "Captured" in the glossary or within the statemnet itself . Hth , JimL On Sat, 16 Nov 2024, John Curran wrote:
NANOGers -
In October 2023, the Number Resource Organization initiated a process to undertake a significant update to Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP-2); the policy which specifies the criteria for establishing new Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has been tasked with managing the revision process, emphasizing community engagement and transparency.
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-ver...
The ASO AC is actively seeking feedback from the Internet number resource community and the broader internet community on these proposed principles. At this stage, comments are being solicited on the principles themselves, rather than specific amendments to the text of the document. This collaborative approach aims to refine the principles before drafting a revised version of ICP-2 for further stakeholder input. To facilitate community engagement, there is a questionnaire seeking feedback that available in multiple languages, including English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. The questionnaire is designed to gather diverse perspectives and can be completed in approximately 7?10 minutes.
Recognizing the importance of comprehensive community input, the deadline for input has via the questionnaire has been extended to 6 December 2024.
If you have an interest in the governance principles that should be applicable to RIRs, and a moment available to provide input, please consider doing so. More details about the principles and questionnaire are available on the NRO website - https://www.nro.net/nro-announces-that-the-deadline-for-the-icp-2-questionna...
Thanks! /John
John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
-- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network & System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | jiml@system-techniques.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
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-ver...
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/
Bill, On Nov 16, 2024, at 10:00 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
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.
Depending on what you mean by “alter service that is within their territory but outside of that legal jurisdiction”, while it might be possible to identify such a jurisdiction now (I’m unable to think of one off hand, certainly not the US), “Past results are no guarantee of future performance” and a side effect of regulation/legal action can be to limit the ability of the RIR to counter that action.
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.
Having long ago had some experience relocating a (much, much smaller) RIR from one legal jurisdiction to another, this would be a non-trivial undertaking with significant cost and implying a high level of disruption, both to the community the RIR serves as well as its staff. Pragmatically speaking, I’m skeptical either the RIRs or their members would view the benefits outweighing the costs/risks. That is, if (say) there was a court order in the US that required ARIN to invalidate a particular block of addresses, I’m skeptical ARIN and its staff would pull up stakes and move to another country or that the ARIN membership would be inclined to demand such a move.
To the extent that the ICP offers ICANN authority over the number system, ICANN must do the same.
I suspect this is a bit outside the scope of the current effort.
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel). Regards, -drc
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 11:05 AM David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2024, at 10:00 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
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.
Having long ago had some experience relocating a (much, much smaller) RIR from one legal jurisdiction to another, this would be a non-trivial undertaking with significant cost and implying a high level of disruption,
Hi David, Hence the need for _contingency planning_ performed under no time pressure far in advance of any action. And since no jurisdiction is immune, that contingency planning includes figuring out how much interference is enough that the trigger should be pulled on executing the plan. You figure these things out in advance so that when the pressure is on there's no need for hand-wringing; you just follow the plan. Really, it's just another part of the disaster recovery planning. A different failure mode that requires recovery.
To the extent that the ICP offers ICANN authority over the number system, ICANN must do the same.
I suspect this is a bit outside the scope of the current effort.
Under proposed principles - governance - authority, the draft says, "ICANN shall have final authority to..." So long as ICANN is meant to hold the final authority in any matter relevant to the RIR system, the question of external interference in ICANN operations is in scope for the effort.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
They discourage forum shopping. Forum shopping tends to cause a race to the bottom. It's unhealthy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel? Noah
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel.
And, to the extent that the service provider must excel. Competition is healthy for all enterprise.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley, <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by
Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin: the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is
unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel.
And, to the extent that the service provider must excel.
Competition is healthy for all enterprise.
The registries are more than just an enterprise boss. Noah
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley, <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by
Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin: the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is
unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel.
And, to the extent that the service provider must excel.
Competition is healthy for all enterprise.
The registries are more than just an enterprise boss.
They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. They are not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary legislative or judicial powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit businesses.
Your theory here is nonsense. Can you perhaps think before you respond on some issues. A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions. Can you share any such proof or fillings that any of the RIR have shareholders and those shareholders distribute dividends or payouts annually to the RIR stockholders? Noah
Everyone, "It is great to see so much interest and discussion about the ICP-2 review. Please be aware that the ASO AC will only be processing the feedback received through the questionnaire - https://ripe-ncc.typeform.com/icp-2?typeform-source=www.arin.net. Be sure to share your feedback through the questionnaire for formal consideration." Just providing for your information in case you wish to have your feedback captured and considered by the ASO AC. Thanks, John S. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jsweeting=arin.net@nanog.org> on behalf of Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 at 3:37 PM To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com<mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah <noah@neo.co.tz<mailto:noah@neo.co.tz>> wrote: On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley, <heas@shrubbery.net<mailto:heas@shrubbery.net>> wrote: Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz<mailto:noah@neo.co.tz>> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel.
And, to the extent that the service provider must excel. Competition is healthy for all enterprise. The registries are more than just an enterprise boss. They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. They are not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary legislative or judicial powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit businesses. Your theory here is nonsense. Can you perhaps think before you respond on some issues. A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions. Can you share any such proof or fillings that any of the RIR have shareholders and those shareholders distribute dividends or payouts annually to the RIR stockholders? Noah
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:42 PM John Sweeting <jsweeting@arin.net> wrote:
"It is great to see so much interest and discussion about the ICP-2 review. Please be aware that the ASO AC will only be processing the feedback received through the questionnaire - https://ripe-ncc.typeform.com/icp-2?typeform-source=www.arin.net. Be sure to share your feedback through the questionnaire for formal consideration."
Just providing for your information in case you wish to have your feedback captured and considered by the ASO AC.
Hi John, If the ASO AC wants community input and participation the process they've picked is, respectfully, entirely wrong. Ideas need discussion and debate to germinate and questionnaires fail to capture answers to questions the author didn't think to ask. But since you asked nicely, I'll offer that feedback via the questionnaire. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Nov 19, 2024, at 4:09 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: ... If the ASO AC wants community input and participation the process they've picked is, respectfully, entirely wrong. Ideas need discussion and debate to germinate and questionnaires fail to capture answers to questions the author didn't think to ask. Good Morning Bill - 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. The ASO AC will consider all of the input received on a global basis and use it to evolve the proposed ICP-2 principles accordingly. The ASO AC (also known as the NRO NC) is comprised of members that were elected by the community in each RIR region to represent the respective communities for these sorts of processes – just as they do in global Internet number resource policy development. For the ARIN region, the representatives are Kevin Blumberg, Nick Nugent, and Chris Quesada (Chris serving thru 2024, with Amy Potter elected & starting in Jan 2025.) If you have concerns about the process being followed by the ASO AC in the development of the ICP-2 principles, I would suggest raising such with any of the representatives from this region. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:18 AM John Curran <jcurran@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 bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
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 <bill@herrin.us> 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
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:18 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote: 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 bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Nov 20, 2024, at 10:25 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:18 AM John Curran <jcurran@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.
Bill - I am not sure that there is any reward at all for groups that coalesce around a single submission; i.e., at the end of the day, a good idea is a good idea regardless of source. As for regulatory capture, I imagine it could be considered a risk but having a single body (in this case, the ASO AC) digest all the input received is necessary of a process that is both global in scope and converges in reasonable time. I’ll admit that it does place significant faith in the capabilities of those elected to the ASO AC, but from what I’ve seen to date, that faith is indeed well-placed. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com> wrote:
They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. They are not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary legislative or judicial powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit businesses.
A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions.
Noah, You are correct that a non-profit organization does not have owners and thus does not produce profits for distribution to owners. Instead, it has a board of directors with a legal duty to assure it operates consistent with its non-profit mission. Owen is correct that in every other respect, a non-profit organization functions like any ordinary business. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 00:16 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com> wrote:
They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. They are not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary legislative or judicial powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit businesses.
A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions.
Noah,
You are correct that a non-profit organization does not have owners and thus does not produce profits for distribution to owners. Instead, it has a board of directors with a legal duty to assure it operates consistent with its non-profit mission.
Indeed...
Owen is correct that in every other respect, a non-profit organization functions like any ordinary business.
Bill, For the purposes of regulatory compliances, an NGO ought to ensure it meets its statutory liabilies just like any legal entity. However, referring to the RIRs system as a cartel is misleading. We are choosing to throw the word cartel around as if the RIR lack accountability and operate without oversight yet we all here are members of such RIRs and we as a community have participated in the policy development processes that bore the rules of engagement for which the RIR system have operated-in for decades. The administrators or if you will staff/employees of these RIR's run them based on bylaws/constitutions that resource members have enacted. The policies each RIR follows to manage number resources in each region came to be through community consensus through the policy development processes that are open to public participation. How then can some of you claim that the RIRs are some sort of cartel. Are we saying that we the resource members who agreed on a constitutions for managing these organizations and go on to bankroll the systems through membership fees together with the wider internet communities who decide on the rules of engagement through the PDP, created cartels organizations in concert through our collective actions? Noah
Owen - As the one who posted this topic to nanog, I feel some responsibility in seeing that its discussion is productive. To that end, could you perhaps focus a bit more on expressing the principles that you see as important in a future ICP-2 policy, as these will be likely be more easily understood and considered by those on the list versus compared to just a rehashing of your views on a particular RIR's challenges. You note “this consultation is an effort to consider ways to address them”, so do you have any suggestions to that end? Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On Nov 20, 2024, at 12:54 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: On Nov 19, 2024, at 13:35, Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote: On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 00:16 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz<mailto:noah@neo.co.tz>> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com<mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. They are not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary legislative or judicial powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit businesses.
A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions.
Noah, You are correct that a non-profit organization does not have owners and thus does not produce profits for distribution to owners. Instead, it has a board of directors with a legal duty to assure it operates consistent with its non-profit mission. Indeed... Owen is correct that in every other respect, a non-profit organization functions like any ordinary business. Bill, For the purposes of regulatory compliances, an NGO ought to ensure it meets its statutory liabilies just like any legal entity. However, referring to the RIRs system as a cartel is misleading. We are choosing to throw the word cartel around as if the RIR lack accountability and operate without oversight yet we all here are members of such RIRs and we as a community have participated in the policy development processes that bore the rules of engagement for which the RIR system have operated-in for decades. It turns out that this is the case. There is, at present, no mechanism for the NRO, the community, or the membership to reign in the actions or gain accountability over one of the five RIRs and no mechanism for revoking its accreditation or function as an RIR and transferring that critical role to any other entity. Instead, one man without mandate or authority continues to purport to be in charge of that RIR and run it as he sees fit. The entity in question has not a single board member, no CEO and has acted in violation of multiple court orders. The entire purpose of this consultation is to correct the lack of foresight that led to this current state. The administrators or if you will staff/employees of these RIR's run them based on bylaws/constitutions that resource members have enacted. The policies each RIR follows to manage number resources in each region came to be through community consensus through the policy development processes that are open to public participation. That is an act of blind faith. It’s worked out ok by and large because most of those staff have been ethical, honest, and dedicated employees providing exemplary service to their communities. Unfortunately, one exceptional case has created tremendous problems which continue to go unresolved for years at this point, clearly pointing out some flaws in the accountability and oversight processes in the current system. How then can some of you claim that the RIRs are some sort of cartel. I’ll leave this to the previously posted answers by Lee Howard and Bill Herrin as I believe they covered the topic well. Are we saying that we the resource members who agreed on a constitutions for managing these organizations and go on to bankroll the systems through membership fees together with the wider internet communities who decide on the rules of engagement through the PDP, created cartels organizations in concert through our collective actions? Yes. Yes, we did. To make matters worse, at least one of those organizations has gone rogue and there is no current mechanism for addressing that issue other than waiting for it to work through the courts of Mauritius and eventually the privy council in London. Yes, we made these errors and this consultation is an effort to consider ways to address them. Owen
Hi,
A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions. You have described one structure of a corporation, but the definition of a business is much broader.
FWIW, unsurprisingly, the definition of “business” varies depending on country and their legal system and context (e.g., legal, tax, or regulatory). Regards, -drc
I certainly understand the appeal of the expedient, but I still feel that such a change to ICP-2 should require the same rigors as a new document in order to have legitimacy, thus, if this is an effort to short cut that process, it feels wrong to me. Others may well have different opinions, but you specifically asked for mine. Owen
On Nov 21, 2024, at 18:32, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Hi,
A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions. You have described one structure of a corporation, but the definition of a business is much broader.
FWIW, unsurprisingly, the definition of “business” varies depending on country and their legal system and context (e.g., legal, tax, or regulatory).
Regards, -drc
<signature.asc>
On Nov 21, 2024, at 18:32, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Hi,
A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions. You have described one structure of a corporation, but the definition of a business is much broader.
FWIW, unsurprisingly, the definition of “business” varies depending on country and their legal system and context (e.g., legal, tax, or regulatory).
Is there any one of the 5 jurisdictions where RIRs operate that do not define the existing RIR in that jurisdiction as a business? I know, for example that ARIN is definitely a business by the applicable definition. AFRINIC is a “corporation limited buy guarantee” and chartered under the companies act of Mauritius. I’d say that “company” and “business” are sufficiently synonymous to say that is the case there. I’m less familiar with the legal frameworks and charters of the other three, but I’m pretty sure RIPE NCC is a business by the rules there. Owen
Regards, -drc
<signature.asc>
It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <owen@delong.com> said:
Is there any one of the 5 jurisdictions where RIRs operate that do not define the existing RIR in that jurisdiction as a business?
I know, for example that ARIN is definitely a business by the applicable definition.
ARIN is a Virginia nonstock corporation which has a 501(c)(3) charitable registration with the IRS. It seems to be a theological argument whether you consider that to be a business. Most definitions of business include an intention to make a profit, which rules out ARIN.
I’m less familiar with the legal frameworks and charters of the other three, but I’m pretty sure RIPE NCC is a business by the rules there.
RIPE is a non-profit association under Dutch law. LACNIC is a non-profit association under Uruguay law. Same theological argument. APNIC is an Australian Pty Ltd so you can make a somewhat stronger argument that it's a business, although in practice it seems to operate a lot like ARIN, RIPE, and LACNIC. At this point I wouldn't try to guess what Afrinic is. R's, John
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:18 John Levine, <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <owen@delong.com> said:
Is there any one of the 5 jurisdictions where RIRs operate that do not define the existing RIR in that jurisdiction as a business?
I know, for example that ARIN is definitely a business by the applicable definition.
ARIN is a Virginia nonstock corporation which has a 501(c)(3) charitable registration with the IRS.
It seems to be a theological argument whether you consider that to be a business. Most definitions of business include an intention to make a profit, which rules out ARIN.
I’m less familiar with the legal frameworks and charters of the other three, but I’m pretty sure RIPE NCC is a business by the rules there.
RIPE is a non-profit association under Dutch law. LACNIC is a non-profit association under Uruguay law. Same theological argument.
APNIC is an Australian Pty Ltd so you can make a somewhat stronger argument that it's a business, although in practice it seems to operate a lot like ARIN, RIPE, and LACNIC.
We put above.... The small anti-RIR folks, think of RIR as book keepers doing some sort of commercial exchange of goods (IPv$) which they consider as a commodity to be traded for direct financial gains. They both reject the ideals of membership-based cooperation and need-based resource allocation for public use to deliver digital good&services and they instead subscribe to straight up profit based transactions without any digital services provisions. Therefore its in their best interest to make such claims as RIRs are straight up businesses.
At this point I wouldn't try to guess what Afrinic is.
And nor is Afrinic a Business. Its a cooperation of members limited by guarantee as long as we the guarantors ensure compliance to statutory liabilities inline with the company Act of Mauritius. The system basically operate as a not-for-profit. It pays debts ( in otherwords taxes) as required by the law and that just about it. Noah
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 20:25 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com> wrote:
A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions.
The Red Cross is a business. Kaiser permanents is a business. Neither fits your description above.
You have described one structure of a corporation, but the definition of a business is much broader.
The corporation of resource members are not a business that is why they are structured as not-for-profit organisations. In the case of RIR such as a legal entity AFRINIC, we resource members through our bylaws appoint directors as* guarantors so as to comply with the Mauritius Companies Act and meet statutoty liabilities and that's just about it. We dont take profits.*
Can you share any such proof or fillings that any of the RIR have shareholders and those shareholders distribute dividends or payouts annually to the RIR stockholders?
No, instead, I have pointed out the error in your definition of a business. Perhaps you should think on this a bit more before posting nonsense.
There is no error in my defination. The confusion is with your language English which we can agree to disagree. In my language Swahili, the word "business" translates to "Biashara". https://sw.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biashara AFRINIC sio Biashara. RIR sio Biashara ya mtu au watu binafsi. Noah
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:21 AM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
In the case of RIR such as a legal entity AFRINIC, we resource members through our bylaws appoint directors as guarantors so as to comply with the Mauritius Companies Act and meet statutoty liabilities and that's just about it. We dont take profits.
Can either one of you explain what possible difference it makes whether the rest of us consider the RIRs a business? We all agree that the RIRs have no shareholders and thus are not engaged in maximizing their shareholders' value. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:21 AM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
In the case of RIR such as a legal entity AFRINIC, we resource members through our bylaws appoint directors as guarantors so as to comply with the Mauritius Companies Act and meet statutoty liabilities and that's just about it. We dont take profits.
Can either one of you explain what possible difference it makes whether the rest of us consider the RIRs a business?
The RIRs are legal not-for-profit cooperations with a clear not-for-profit mandate. Period. Noah
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Can either one of you explain what possible difference it makes whether the rest of us consider the RIRs a business? We all agree that the RIRs have no shareholders and thus are not engaged in maximizing their shareholders' value.
The RIRs are legal not-for-profit cooperations with a clear not-for-profit mandate. Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 22:03 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Can either one of you explain what possible difference it makes whether the rest of us consider the RIRs a business? We all agree that the RIRs have no shareholders and thus are not engaged in maximizing their shareholders' value.
The RIRs are legal not-for-profit cooperations with a clear not-for-profit mandate. Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference
Government and Private enterprise are two different entities. Noah.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 11:59 AM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 22:03 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Can either one of you explain what possible difference it makes whether the rest of us consider the RIRs a business? We all agree that the RIRs have no shareholders and thus are not engaged in maximizing their shareholders' value.
The RIRs are legal not-for-profit cooperations with a clear not-for-profit mandate. Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference
Government and Private enterprise are two different entities.
I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you trying to say that you think the RIRs are government? -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 23:48 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote: the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is
unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it.
That doesn't make sense. Are we trying to imply that the RIR's are a geographic monopoly? What makes an RIR? Is it, its administrators/managers of the registry or is it, its resource members and other stakeholders? Every system has its own modus operandi. Last I checked, they are member based and rules of engagement are set by the members. If members want change in price, there is a process. One of which includes change of leadership with new mandate such as review of pricing etc. Noah
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 1:07 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 23:48 William Herrin, <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it.
That doesn't make sense. Are we trying to imply that the RIR's are a geographic monopoly?
Hi Noah, I "imply" nothing. If you read the document John referenced, https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/proposed-icp-2-ver..., it explicitly says, "The Region for which an RIR is responsible shall cover a large multinational geographic area and shall not overlap with that of another RIR." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Hi Noah, On Nov 18, 2024, at 1:07 PM, Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
Are we trying to imply that the RIR's are a geographic monopoly?
Not implying, simply stating a fact. This has been the case explicitly since the RIRs were established. See RFC 1366, section 2.0, 2nd paragraph or, if you prefer, ICP-2, Principle 1, second sentence. Regards, -drc
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:50 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com> wrote:
The RIRs each have a geographic monopoly and at their creation, this is required by ICP-2 (the original). This has nothing to do with where you land on any of your subsequent questions.
Are the European Union or African Union, geographic monopolies? The NRO cartel has agreed to specific territories served by each RIR,
granting each a geographic monopoly.
You write as if a couple of guys formed an organization and decided how the system must work. FWIW, the RIRs (NRO) are an outcome of wider internet community engagents that lasted years if not decade for which you historically particpated in as a member of the said communities. Most of the rules of engagent were decided through wider consultations at policy debates and some by those elected by various internet communities. Do not confuse the RIR/NRO system with the pseudo-private enterprises operated by sole propriators who believe that they can change a system that has served the public so well for decades and continue to do so. Because organizations served by RIRs are not constrained by those
boundaries, many operate in more than one region and the rules get fuzzy, but in general, territorial exclusivity is long established.
And countries do have some embassies in different other countries.
I’m not saying this is good or bad. I see benefits to it, but I also see reasons it might be better to phase it out.
In any case, it might be worth considering granting a certain right of a registrant to transfer the servicing of their registration to the RIR of their choosing.
Each region has its own rules of engagement. When such registrant decides to play in a certain service region, they must comply with existing rules of the game in the said region. Noah
Owen, I was the Chair of the NRO when it directed the ASO AC to embark on this project to strengthen ICP-2 in order to better represent the accountability of the RIR system to the Internet community. Accordingly, I will respond to that aspect of your post below. (I am otherwise intentionally refraining from discussing the particulars of the principles themselves, as this is a consultation of the community and its views on such topics.) The process for recognizing an RIR is based predominantly on its initial compliance with the principles developed by this community. While it is theoretically possible to create a second policy document addressing ongoing compliance with the principles, doing so would require detailing the ongoing requirements and would open the possibility of misalignment of principles between the two documents. Furthermore, it would necessitate agreement by all parties to a second document and introduces risk of edge cases where RIRs might be party to one document but not the other. It is not uncommon for the entire lifecycle of a relationship to be contained within a single document (covering establishment, joint activity, and termination). In light of the risks mentioned above, the NRO-EC asked the ASO AC to review and strengthen the existing ICP-2, ensuring its requirements were current and adequate. This approach seemed more straightforward than asking the ASO AC to both review and update the requirements within the existing ICP-2 policy document and then embark on creating an entirely new document “purpose built for dealing with the ongoing requirements and rules by which RIRs operate and remain in the system” as you suggested below. I hope this helps explain the reasoning behind the current process (while recognizing that others may weigh the tradeoffs involved differently.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On Nov 20, 2024, at 4:20 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: I personally think this entire process is the wrong answer to a semi right question. Contrary to popular illusion, ICP-2 is about the criteria by which ICANN can accept a new RIR into the system. In my opinion, there’s no need for significant improvement in that process. The critical oversight that needs to be addressed is that we’ve made no allowance for disciplining or resolving rogue RIRs and now we have one. Rather than seeking to turn ICP-2 into something it is not and never should have been, we should be seeking to develop a new document purpose built for dealing with the ongoing requirements and rules by which RIRs operate and remain in the system. To that end, I do not think a simple majority vote of the NRO EC should be sufficient to remove an RIR from the system. Said vote is a reasonable first step, but some mechanism must exist by which that vote must be ratified by a body that is both more accountable to and more representative of the larger community. Not a single member of the NRO EC is elected by anyone. Each of them is appointed by the respective boards of the RIRs in question. Further, a simple majority is only 3 votes. Surely, such a global and far reaching decision with such serious impact should be deliberated by a body of more than 5 individuals, one of which has a clear conflict of interest in the proceedings. I hate this answer and hope someone else can come up with something better, but the best I’ve come up with so far is ratification by the board of the central registry (currently ICANN/PTI). Owen On Nov 20, 2024, at 09:52, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote: On Nov 19, 2024, at 13:12, Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote: On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:50 Owen DeLong, <owen@delong.com<mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: The RIRs each have a geographic monopoly and at their creation, this is required by ICP-2 (the original). This has nothing to do with where you land on any of your subsequent questions. Are the European Union or African Union, geographic monopolies? I don’t know enough about the structure of the African union to comment, but to the extent other territorial monopolies (the member nation states) have ceded sovereignty on specific topics to the EU, yes, the EU is a geographic monopoly. The NRO cartel has agreed to specific territories served by each RIR, granting each a geographic monopoly. You write as if a couple of guys formed an organization and decided how the system must work. I didn’t specify quantity, but otherwise, your description isn’t far off from what happened. FWIW, the RIRs (NRO) are an outcome of wider internet community engagents that lasted years if not decade for which you historically particpated in as a member of the said communities. Most of the rules of engagent were decided through wider consultations at policy debates and some by those elected by various internet communities. The community had input, but in the early days, all of the decisions were made by small numbers of people behind closed doors who were supposed to consider, but not necessarily follow said community input. Do not confuse the RIR/NRO system with the pseudo-private enterprises operated by sole propriators who believe that they can change a system that has served the public so well for decades and continue to do so. I have no such illusions. However, I also don’t share your rose colored view of the current situation. Yes, the RIRs have mostly done a good job and 4 of them are operating similarly to what you describe (fortunately). One is completely off the rails, has no legitimate board and no legitimate executive, continues to operate contrary to court orders, under the supposed leadership of a self-appointed former board member. The fact that the other 4, the community, and the membership have no mechanism by which they can reign this behavior in is the primary source of the desire to change ICP-2 from a one and done document for creating RIRs to a document guiding the ongoing operation of RIRs and providing additional checks and balances to deal with rogue RIRs. Because organizations served by RIRs are not constrained by those boundaries, many operate in more than one region and the rules get fuzzy, but in general, territorial exclusivity is long established. And countries do have some embassies in different other countries. Yes and no. Technically, embassies are considered sovereign territory of the country represented and inviolable by the host country. Your comment is orthogonal to the geographic monopoly of the RIRs. I’m not saying this is good or bad. I see benefits to it, but I also see reasons it might be better to phase it out. In any case, it might be worth considering granting a certain right of a registrant to transfer the servicing of their registration to the RIR of their choosing. Each region has its own rules of engagement. When such registrant decides to play in a certain service region, they must comply with existing rules of the game in the said region. And what is to be done when the RIR chooses not to play by its own rules? Owen
In the same way that phone numbers or radio frequencies are allocated by geographical monopolies, yes. Except that the RIRs are *much* more open to participation. And you don't have to get addresses from RIRs; you can get them from NIRs in some cases, or LIRs everywhere. What problem are you trying to solve? Lee -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+leehoward=hilcostreambank.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2024 3:48 PM To: Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments. On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories.
While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel).
I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel?
A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:46 PM Howard, Lee <LeeHoward@hilcostreambank.com> wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve?
Clarity. Good, bad or indifferent, the RIRs are a cartel of geographic monopolies. As we talk about what they should be tomorrow, it's helpful to understand what they are today. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
They do not meet the dictionary definition of "cartel." 1: a written agreement between belligerent nations 2: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices 3: a combination of political groups for common action https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cartel "Cartel" is a pretty pejorative term to apply to non-profit organizations providing a coordination service (ensuring uniqueness). Probably also time to note some of NANOG's list guidelines: 1. Posts to NANOG’s Mailing List should be focused on operational and technical content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws. 8. Posts of a political, philosophical, or legal nature are prohibited. We may be off topic. Lee -----Original Message----- From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 5:57 PM To: Howard, Lee <LeeHoward@hilcostreambank.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments. On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:46 PM Howard, Lee <LeeHoward@hilcostreambank.com> wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve?
Clarity. Good, bad or indifferent, the RIRs are a cartel of geographic monopolies. As we talk about what they should be tomorrow, it's helpful to understand what they are today. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:22 PM Howard, Lee <LeeHoward@hilcostreambank.com> wrote:
They do not meet the dictionary definition of "cartel." 2: a combination of independent commercial enterprises designed to limit competition
You have to pick nits about whether a non-profit is a commercial enterprise to decide the RIRs don't fit this definition.
"Cartel" is a pretty pejorative term
Then no one will mistake it as sugar-coating the situation. You put the thing in its worst possible light and if it still looks good it probably is good. If it doesn't, maybe it should get another look. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Good, bad or indifferent, the RIRs are a cartel of geographic monopolies. As we talk about what they should be tomorrow, it's helpful to understand what they are today.
What is, in your opinion, the perfect scenario by which the functions of the RIRs today could be structured? The 'if I could greenfield this today' idea? On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 5:59 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:46 PM Howard, Lee <LeeHoward@hilcostreambank.com> wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve?
Clarity.
Good, bad or indifferent, the RIRs are a cartel of geographic monopolies. As we talk about what they should be tomorrow, it's helpful to understand what they are today.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:59 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
What is, in your opinion, the perfect scenario by which the functions of the RIRs today could be structured? The 'if I could greenfield this today' idea?
Hi Tom, They'd look more or less like they do today. Rough spots aside, four of the five are working pretty well. Most of the changes I would make to the RIRs are small ones. For example, there are instances of product tying at ARIN which I think should be eliminated. The contract for RPKI service is tied to having a contract for address registration service. This is unnecessary and in my view, counterproductive. A consumer of ARIN RPKI service must be able to demonstrate lawful possession of the associated address block, but that shouldn't require holding an ARIN contract for registration of the same address block. There are larger changes I would consider, but nothing I would definitely do. Sometimes the right thing to do and the legally safe thing to do are not the same. The ARIN RPKI TAL should be available on an as-is basis. It's not. ARIN stopped demanding a signed contract, but they still assert that you're bound to a non-trivial contract as a consequence of using it. Counsel tells us offering it as-is creates a legal risk for the entire organization. Which impacts the registration services. The right answer might be forking off a separate corporate entity to implement RPKI so that they can do the right thing while only creating legal risk in their specific environment. For another example, there's a tension between the exigencies of operating a modern registry and the obligations to so-called legacy registrants taken on at the dawn of the commercial Internet. One possible relief would be to fork off a legacy registry and let it operate its own governance applicable only to those legacy registrations. Such a registry would inherently overlap the geography of the others. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Bill- Thanks. It sounds to me then that you don't really have much of an issue with the RIR system generally then, but your concerns are more centered on one specific RIR. On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 3:21 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
What is, in your opinion, the perfect scenario by which the functions of
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:59 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote: the RIRs today could be structured? The 'if I could greenfield this today' idea?
Hi Tom,
They'd look more or less like they do today. Rough spots aside, four of the five are working pretty well.
Most of the changes I would make to the RIRs are small ones. For example, there are instances of product tying at ARIN which I think should be eliminated. The contract for RPKI service is tied to having a contract for address registration service. This is unnecessary and in my view, counterproductive. A consumer of ARIN RPKI service must be able to demonstrate lawful possession of the associated address block, but that shouldn't require holding an ARIN contract for registration of the same address block.
There are larger changes I would consider, but nothing I would definitely do.
Sometimes the right thing to do and the legally safe thing to do are not the same. The ARIN RPKI TAL should be available on an as-is basis. It's not. ARIN stopped demanding a signed contract, but they still assert that you're bound to a non-trivial contract as a consequence of using it. Counsel tells us offering it as-is creates a legal risk for the entire organization. Which impacts the registration services. The right answer might be forking off a separate corporate entity to implement RPKI so that they can do the right thing while only creating legal risk in their specific environment.
For another example, there's a tension between the exigencies of operating a modern registry and the obligations to so-called legacy registrants taken on at the dawn of the commercial Internet. One possible relief would be to fork off a legacy registry and let it operate its own governance applicable only to those legacy registrations. Such a registry would inherently overlap the geography of the others.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:26 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It sounds to me then that you don't really have much of an issue with the RIR system generally then, but your concerns are more centered on one specific RIR.
Sorry, no. The question was about guiding principles for an updated ICP between the RIRs. That's what I responded to: improvements to that document not "concerns" about individual RIRs. You also requested a tangent about detail-level changes I might make to the RIRs themselves, so I offered some ideas born from my direct experience. Sorry that confused you. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Sorry, no. The question was about guiding principles for an updated ICP between the RIRs. That's what I responded to: improvements to that document not "concerns" about individual RIRs.
You also requested a tangent about detail-level changes I might make to the RIRs themselves, so I offered some ideas born from my direct experience. Sorry that confused you.
Repeating my original question: What is, in your opinion, the perfect scenario by which the functions of
the RIRs today could be structured? The 'if I could greenfield this today' idea?
I was not asking about updates to ICP-2. I was specifically asking for your greenfield idea, in an attempt to work backwards and understand your concerns and perspective. It's clear you aren't interested in actual debate and discussion , but would prefer to just stomp and yell. I'll stop polluting everyone else's inboxes trying to sort through that. Take care. On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:01 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:26 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It sounds to me then that you don't really have much of an issue with the RIR system generally then, but your concerns are more centered on one specific RIR.
Sorry, no. The question was about guiding principles for an updated ICP between the RIRs. That's what I responded to: improvements to that document not "concerns" about individual RIRs.
You also requested a tangent about detail-level changes I might make to the RIRs themselves, so I offered some ideas born from my direct experience. Sorry that confused you.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:28 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
What is, in your opinion, the perfect scenario by which the functions of the RIRs today could be structured? The 'if I could greenfield this today' idea?
I was not asking about updates to ICP-2. I was specifically asking for your greenfield idea, in an attempt to work backwards and understand your concerns and perspective.
Hi Tom, Love the Amazon work-backwards technique but it's not always instructive. My comments didn't and weren't intended to say much about what I want the RIRs to change into. I think the RIRs should evolve into what best serves their myriad communities. That's not something that comes from a top-down vision, least of all mine. Instead, my comments spoke to what I want the RIRs to NOT change into. The perspective I'm coming from is this: what can go wrong, and how do we head that off so it doesn't? Does that answer the meta-question you wanted to explore? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Hi Lee, On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
In the same way that phone numbers or radio frequencies are allocated by geographical monopolies, yes. Except that the RIRs are *much* more open to participation.
And except that telephone numbers and radio frequencies are allocated/managed by nation-states under UN-based international treaty regimes. I’m not sure this is a particularly good model to follow.
What problem are you trying to solve?
As I suspect you’re aware, pragmatically, the geographical monopoly restrictions imposed by the RFCs/ICP-2 are increasingly bypassed, resulting in those restrictions arguably merely adding unnecessary bureaucracy/cost. The question is, when considering revising the policies under which the RIR operate, whether or not perpetuating those restrictions is beneficial in the long run. Regards, -drc
Hi David, I envy you and Bill your threaded mail readers. Clearly other models exist for establishing uniqueness than treaty organizations, since that is the status quo. Your assertion is that competitive RIRs would therefore be able to provide less bureaucracy and lower cost than current RIRs. In the allocation of numbers, IPv6 blocks and ASNs are pretty easy to get, everywhere. They're also pretty cheap: RIPE NCC APNIC AFRINIC LACNIC ARIN IPv6 /32 2600 EUR 1000 AUD 5000 USD 2750 USD 1000 USD ASN 2600 EUR 0 AUD 450 USD 500 USD 250 USD (That's initial fee plus annual renewal, but there are nuances I've simplified. I'm not authoritative and could be corrected for reading their pages wrong). When it comes to IPv4 transfers, the bureaucratic hurdle varies by region. But the potential for fraud is high, and the disruption to the Internet if fraud were to succeed at scale would be significant. (Aha! We found something operational!) How much cost could realistically be driven out, and still have a secure, reliable database and an open policy development process? I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart. Lee -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 6:52 PM To: Howard, Lee <LeeHoward@hilcostreambank.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024 Hi Lee, On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
In the same way that phone numbers or radio frequencies are allocated by geographical monopolies, yes. Except that the RIRs are *much* more open to participation.
And except that telephone numbers and radio frequencies are allocated/managed by nation-states under UN-based international treaty regimes. I’m not sure this is a particularly good model to follow.
What problem are you trying to solve?
As I suspect you’re aware, pragmatically, the geographical monopoly restrictions imposed by the RFCs/ICP-2 are increasingly bypassed, resulting in those restrictions arguably merely adding unnecessary bureaucracy/cost. The question is, when considering revising the policies under which the RIR operate, whether or not perpetuating those restrictions is beneficial in the long run. Regards, -drc
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 9:39 AM Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart.
Hi Lee, Me too. But should one of them make a convincing argument in the future, I'm not convinced it's a good idea for the ICP to stand in the way. I also worry that the ICP-2 draft speaks broadly to what the RIRs may and may not do when it should probably only speak to what *registry services* they can and cannot offer. It's an important distinction. As previously mentioned, there exist things like RIPE RIS and ARIN community grants which are not registry services and should really not be geographically limited. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 09:56:27AM -0800, William Herrin:
previously mentioned, there exist things like RIPE RIS and ARIN community grants which are not registry services and should really not be geographically limited.
IMO, no RIR should be involved in issuing grants. Their function is to provide number services. If they have money for grants, that is further proof that the service fees are too high.
How much cost could realistically be driven out, and still have a secure, reliable database and an open policy development process?
I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart.
There is a 100% chance that a for profit entity would increase every fee that the non-profit RIRs charge today, and invent as many new fees and charges as they could possibly get away with. On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:41 PM Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
Hi David,
I envy you and Bill your threaded mail readers.
Clearly other models exist for establishing uniqueness than treaty organizations, since that is the status quo.
Your assertion is that competitive RIRs would therefore be able to provide less bureaucracy and lower cost than current RIRs. In the allocation of numbers, IPv6 blocks and ASNs are pretty easy to get, everywhere. They're also pretty cheap: RIPE NCC APNIC AFRINIC LACNIC ARIN IPv6 /32 2600 EUR 1000 AUD 5000 USD 2750 USD 1000 USD ASN 2600 EUR 0 AUD 450 USD 500 USD 250 USD (That's initial fee plus annual renewal, but there are nuances I've simplified. I'm not authoritative and could be corrected for reading their pages wrong).
When it comes to IPv4 transfers, the bureaucratic hurdle varies by region. But the potential for fraud is high, and the disruption to the Internet if fraud were to succeed at scale would be significant. (Aha! We found something operational!)
How much cost could realistically be driven out, and still have a secure, reliable database and an open policy development process?
I am aware of a couple of companies that would like to compete with the RIRs. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. So far they have been unable to convince me that they have the communities' best interests at heart.
Lee
-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 6:52 PM To: Howard, Lee <LeeHoward@hilcostreambank.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
Hi Lee,
On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Howard, Lee via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
In the same way that phone numbers or radio frequencies are allocated by geographical monopolies, yes. Except that the RIRs are *much* more open to participation.
And except that telephone numbers and radio frequencies are allocated/managed by nation-states under UN-based international treaty regimes. I’m not sure this is a particularly good model to follow.
What problem are you trying to solve?
As I suspect you’re aware, pragmatically, the geographical monopoly restrictions imposed by the RFCs/ICP-2 are increasingly bypassed, resulting in those restrictions arguably merely adding unnecessary bureaucracy/cost. The question is, when considering revising the policies under which the RIR operate, whether or not perpetuating those restrictions is beneficial in the long run.
Regards, -drc
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:
The ASO AC has drafted a document which outlines the principles for the
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:18 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote: 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-ver...
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/
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:35 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Can you point to a specific legislative proposal, action, or legal cases/filings that could lead to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute There are, of course, many more examples. That was just the easiest one to find. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute
There are, of course, many more examples. That was just the easiest one to find.
It's also not an example of what I asked. On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 5:14 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:35 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Can you point to a specific legislative proposal, action, or legal cases/filings that could lead to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute
There are, of course, many more examples. That was just the easiest one to find.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:01 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute
There are, of course, many more examples. That was just the easiest one to find.
It's also not an example of what I asked.
Hi Tom, I rejected the premise of your question. In my view, you tried to shape it to get the answer you wanted. If you expand the question to examples of a government jurisdiction under which ICANN falls attempting to direct the action of a private third-party organization in the tech industry in a manner that contravenes otherwise lawful services to its customers, I refer you to the above. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Ok. On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 7:05 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:01 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute
There are, of course, many more examples. That was just the easiest one to find.
It's also not an example of what I asked.
Hi Tom,
I rejected the premise of your question. In my view, you tried to shape it to get the answer you wanted.
If you expand the question to examples of a government jurisdiction under which ICANN falls attempting to direct the action of a private third-party organization in the tech industry in a manner that contravenes otherwise lawful services to its customers, I refer you to the above.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Hi Bill, On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 at 22:01, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: [...]
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.
RIRs already register resources to organisations in other regions. The fact that many registrants of ASNs are from outside of the RIPE region has been discussed recent RIPE meetings. I asked RIR staff about this part of the text. They explained to me that this part of the text was not intended as a restriction on registering resources in another region. Instead, its goal was to ensure that an RIR cannot refuse to provide service to organisations based in a country within its own service region. I suggested that the language could be improved and they asked me to say so in a response to the consultation. So I did. I expect that more comments requesting clearer language would do no harm. Kind regards, Leo
participants (13)
-
babydr DBA James W. Laferriere -
David Conrad -
Dilip Kounmany -
heasley -
Howard, Lee -
John Curran -
John Levine -
John Sweeting -
Leo Vegoda -
Noah -
Owen DeLong -
Tom Beecher -
William Herrin