> On 20 Apr 2025, at 08:36, Osama I. Al-Dosary <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What is the rationale for requiring unanimity (as opposed to a majority vote)?
AFAICT, the ICP-2 draft wisely says nothing about votes. This is how it should
be. I* decides by consensus.
The requirement for unanimity is wrong IMO. First, it gives an RIR a veto: for
instance the one that's going to lose members and resources to the new RIR.
That's not a good look. Second, it smells too much of a cartel. That is likely
to raise concerns from governments and regulators: eg anti-trust, market abuse
or monopoly considerations. The RIRs shouldn't choose to sleepwalk their way
into that geopolitical swamp. I wonder too if the authors of ICP-2 have taken
legal advice about the implications of those references to unanimity.
Requiring unanimity may well be impractical too. I doubt it's wise to assume
the RIRs will always agree with each other*. Or will never (mis)use their veto
power as a bargaining chip. And then there's the possibility an RIR somehow
fails and isn't in a position to vote. Suppose this draft ICP-2 was in effect
and appointing a new RIR was the only way to replace the one that had failed.
The doc needs further work. IMO the references to unanimity should be replaced
with "consensus decision". Obviously. a definition of consensus would need to
be added too.
* When I was on the NCC board ~20 years ago, the RIRs couldn't reach agreement
on where the NRO would be incorporated or even if it should be incorporated.
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the
email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
