________________________________________________________________________
Summary of comments from the ICP-2 Review Consultation session at APNIC
60
________________________________________________________________________
The ICP-2 Review – RIR Governance Document Consultation was held at
APNIC 60 on Wednesday, 11 September 2026. Asia Pacific representatives
of the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) — Akinori
Maemura, Nicole Chan, and Di Ma — presented the revised RIR Governance
Document and addressed community feedback and questions during the open
mic sessions.
https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/rir-governance-document-version-2/
Below is a summary of comments and questions received.
1. General support and endorsement
A commenter encouraged community feedback on the document, expressing
hope it will uphold fair distribution principles and support a stable
Internet Number Registry System. Another welcomed the inclusion of
values like transparency and impartiality in Article 4.
2. AFRINIC incident
A question was raised about whether the document could have prevented
the AFRINIC incident. Akinori Maemura noted it likely wouldn’t have, but
the updated version will support future Regional Internet Registries
(RIRs). Nicole Chan added that AFRINIC’s issues are now legal and
highlighted the need to strengthen governance of the Internet Number
Registry System, given the ICP-2 document is 25 years old.
3. Corporate governance (Article 4.1(e))
A commenter felt the phrase ‘good corporate governance’ in Article
4.1(e) was too vague and suggested referencing specific standards.
Akinori Maemura explained that governance varies by jurisdiction, so
general principles are used to accommodate different RIR structures.
4. Sub-Regional Registries (Article 2.6(b)(ii))
A commenter raised concerns about Article 2.6(b)(ii), noting it gives
broad discretion to RIRs in sub-delegating resources, which could
undermine transparency and inclusiveness. They suggested more
consultative wording. Another concern was that Sub-Regional Registries
could be misused to bypass the safeguards highlighted in the RIR
Governance Document. In response, Akinori Maemura clarified that this is
an implementation issue and APNIC must ensure decisions align with the
RIR Governance Document.
5. RIR status (Articles 2.3(a)(iii) & (iv))
Concerns were raised about Articles 2.3(a)(iii) and (iv), noting that
new RIRs would need approval from existing RIRs, making approval
unlikely. Akinori Maemura acknowledged the conflict and pointed to the
new dispute resolution section. Additional comments highlighted that
NIRs lack voting rights, and that ICANN’s recognition process places too
much burden on applicant RIRs, suggesting it should instead fall on
those objecting.
6. Voting rights and recognition process
A commenter questioned the proposed threshold of 25% of an RIR’s total
Members to request an ad hoc audit of their RIR, noting that APNIC
currently uses a two-thirds majority of votes cast to amend its by-laws,
a method they believe is more practical and better aligned with APNIC’s
governance. They also suggested that thresholds should be tailored to
each region.
In response, Akinori Maemura explained that setting a universal
threshold is challenging due to differences in RIR membership
structures. Another comment cautioned that allowing RIRs to define their
own thresholds could lead to misuse if governance is compromised.
You can still share your feedback – join the webinar
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akinori Maemura, Nicole Chan, and Di Ma will hold a webinar on Tuesday,
21 October from 14:00-15:00 (UTC +10) for the community to share more
feedback.
Register now!
https://apnic.zoom.us/meeting/register/tBmCQQwqScCdC3iUlsHvWw
To support community feedback, a redline version of the document, which
highlights the differences between version 1 and version 2 is available.
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR-Governance-Document-v2-deltas.pdf
In addition, the NRO NC has published the RIR Governance Document
Version 2: Summary of Differences and Rationale for Changes, which
explains the major differences between the two versions. It also
explains why certain suggestions, while thoughtful and interesting, did
not make their way into the second draft.
https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/rir-governance-document-version-2-summary-of-differences-and-rationale-for-changes/
Please consider the following when preparing your comments:
- Please share feedback that is specific to this draft. Constructive
comments are highly appreciated.
- The NRO NC is particularly interested in hearing your views on
whether the draft addresses questions and concerns with the
previous draft.
- Please note that feedback on implementation is out of scope for
this consultation.
You can also provide your feedback via the ICP-2 Review mailing list —
subscribe to the list now!
https://orbit.apnic.net/mailing-list/[email protected]/
The deadline to submit your comments is 7 November 2025.
________________________________________________________________________
APNIC Secretariat
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
https://www.apnic.net
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
