subject:"Re\: Shaping the Future of ICP\-2\: Community Input Extended to December 2024"

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 22:03 William Herrin,  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM Noah  wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin,  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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-23 Thread William Herrin

On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM Noah  wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin,  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin,  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:21 AM Noah  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-23 Thread William Herrin

On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:21 AM Noah  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:18 John Levine,  wrote:

> It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 20:25 Owen DeLong,  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

>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-23 Thread John Levine

It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-23 Thread Owen DeLong via NANOG

> On Nov 21, 2024, at 18:32, David Conrad  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
> 
> 
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-23 Thread Owen DeLong via NANOG

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  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
> 
> 
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-21 Thread David Conrad via NANOG

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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-21 Thread John Curran

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  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  wrote:




On Nov 19, 2024, at 13:12, Noah  wrote:




On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:50 Owen DeLong, 
mailto:o...@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 close

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

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). OwenOn Nov 20, 2024, at 09:52, Owen DeLong  wrote:On Nov 19, 2024, at 13:12, Noah  wrote:On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:50 Owen DeLong,  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread John Curran

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  wrote:

On Nov 19, 2024, at 13:35, Noah  wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 00:16 William Herrin, 
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, 
> mailto:o...@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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Nov 19, 2024, at 13:35, Noah  wrote:On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 00:16 William Herrin,  wrote:On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah  wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong,  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Nov 19, 2024, at 13:12, Noah  wrote:On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:50 Owen DeLong,  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Nov 19, 2024, at 12:37, Noah  wrote:On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong,  wrote:On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah  wrote:On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley,  wrote:Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah  wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG,  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.1. It’s not a theory, it’s a statement of fact. Just because you don’t like it does not change that. 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. 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. Owen

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread Dilip Kounmany

Hi Tom

Thanks your comment, please see last email in the mailing list, I think my
options has also address some of your point.

Let me quote it here again earlier for your reference

Thanks

/

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 11:44 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> ICP-2 defines the criteria by which a new RIR is established. It is not
> numbering policy.
>
> ICANN cannot force numbering policy decisions on the RIRs. They can
> suggest, but each RIR ratifies their own policies based on their own PDP.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 8:59 AM Dilip Kounmany 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello NANOG community,
>>
>> I’d like to share my thoughts on the ongoing discussion regarding the ICP-2 
>> revision, particularly the importance of the “Portability of Rights to 
>> Number Resources.”
>>
>> ICP-2 is essential for guiding Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in 
>> managing IP addresses globally. As we consider revisions, I believe that 
>> ensuring the portability of IP resources should be a hard requirement. This 
>> means networks should have the right to move their IP resources between RIRs 
>> without undue restrictions.
>>
>> Portability is crucial for maintaining network autonomy, allowing operators 
>> to control the

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread John Curran

> On Nov 20, 2024, at 10:25 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:18 AM John Curran  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread Dilip Kounmany

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  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:18 AM John Curran  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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread William Herrin

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:28 AM Tom Beecher  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread Tom Beecher

ICP-2 defines the criteria by which a new RIR is established. It is not
numbering policy.

ICANN cannot force numbering policy decisions on the RIRs. They can
suggest, but each RIR ratifies their own policies based on their own PDP.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 8:59 AM Dilip Kounmany 
wrote:

> Hello NANOG community,
>
> I’d like to share my thoughts on the ongoing discussion regarding the ICP-2 
> revision, particularly the importance of the “Portability of Rights to Number 
> Resources.”
>
> ICP-2 is essential for guiding Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in 
> managing IP addresses globally. As we consider revisions, I believe that 
> ensuring the portability of IP resources should be a hard requirement. This 
> means networks should have the right to move their IP resources between RIRs 
> without undue restrictions.
>
> Portability is crucial for maintaining network autonomy, allowing operators 
> to control their resources independently of any single RIR. It also promotes 
> competition among RIRs, incentivizing them to improve service quality and 
> accountability.
>
> Additionally, if an RIR’s performance negatively impacts a network's 
> operation, there should be a clear mechanism for portability, similar to DNS 
> registries. This would serve as a necessary safety net for networks facing 
> operational issues.
>
> As we move forward, let’s advocate for these changes in the ICP-2 policy to 
> foster a more resilient and accountable Internet governance framework.
>
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
>
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread Tom Beecher

>
> 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  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:26 PM Tom Beecher  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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread William Herrin

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:18 AM John Curran  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread John Curran

On Nov 19, 2024, at 4:09 PM, William Herrin  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread Dilip Kounmany

Hello NANOG community,

I’d like to share my thoughts on the ongoing discussion regarding the
ICP-2 revision, particularly the importance of the “Portability of
Rights to Number Resources.”

ICP-2 is essential for guiding Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in
managing IP addresses globally. As we consider revisions, I believe
that ensuring the portability of IP resources should be a hard
requirement. This means networks should have the right to move their
IP resources between RIRs without undue restrictions.

Portability is crucial for maintaining network autonomy, allowing
operators to control their resources independently of any single RIR.
It also promotes competition among RIRs, incentivizing them to improve
service quality and accountability.

Additionally, if an RIR’s performance negatively impacts a network's
operation, there should be a clear mechanism for portability, similar
to DNS registries. This would serve as a necessary safety net for
networks facing operational issues.

As we move forward, let’s advocate for these changes in the ICP-2
policy to foster a more resilient and accountable Internet governance
framework.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-20 Thread William Herrin

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:26 PM Tom Beecher  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Tom Beecher

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  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:59 AM Tom Beecher  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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Noah

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 00:16 William Herrin,  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah  wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong,  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah  wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong,  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Noah

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:50 Owen DeLong,  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

>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:42 PM John Sweeting  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread John Sweeting

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  on behalf of Noah 

Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 at 3:37 PM
To: Owen DeLong 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 
2024

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:

On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley, 
mailto:h...@shrubbery.net>> wrote:
Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, 
> > 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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Noah

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong,  wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley,  wrote:
>
>> Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin:
>> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah  wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, 
>> 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

>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:59 AM Tom Beecher  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Owen DeLong via NANOG

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. The NRO cartel has agreed to specific territories served by each RIR, granting each a geographic monopoly. 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. 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. OwenOn Nov 18, 2024, at 13:18, Noah  wrote:On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 23:48 William Herrin,  wrote:On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah  wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG,  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. 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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Owen DeLong via NANOG

On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah  wrote:On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley,  wrote:Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah  wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG,  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. OwenNoah

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Owen DeLong via NANOG

On Nov 18, 2024, at 12:35, Tom Beecher wrote:Bill-To the extent that the ICP offers ICANN authority over the numbersystem, ICANN must do the same. ICANN cannot have final authority overthe establishment of new RIRs should it come to operate in ajurisdiction whose governance would restrict recognition. Irespectfully point out that he who shall not be named has madenumerous campaign promises about changes to the system of law underwhich 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? I don’t recall the exact code reference or name of the law (something like production act), but there is US law on the books that allows a company to be compelled to produce for the federal government essentially by presidential executive order. Further, any court willing to issue such an order would meet your test number 2. Given that the current Supreme Court has more in common with a random number generator than a court of law, I would hesitate to count on their judgment. OwenIn 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 wrote:On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:18 AM John Curran wrote:
> The ASO AC has drafted a document which outlines the principles for the proposed ICP-2 Version 2 policy, and this document is available online for review here - https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/proposed-icp-2-version-2-principles/

Two thoughts:

1. The proposed principles fail to speak to one of the issues debated
on NANOG this week, specifically jurisdictional resistance to
political sanction. It seems to me that an RIR should be expected to
locate itself in a legal jurisdiction where they're unlikely to be
ordered to alter service that is within their territory but outside of
that legal jurisdiction. Moreover, it seems to me that they should
routinely monitor the local and regional legal environments and
maintain contingency plans for relocation in the event of adverse
changes.

To the extent that the ICP offers ICANN authority over the number
system, ICANN must do the same. ICANN cannot have final authority over
the establishment of new RIRs should it come to operate in a
jurisdiction whose governance would restrict recognition. I
respectfully point out that he who shall not be named has made
numerous campaign promises about changes to the system of law under
which ICANN operates. The threat is not imminent, but it's there.

2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the
ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. Although I generally
favor geographic restriction as a matter of practice, perhaps it would
be better to require unanimous assent to permit an RIR to operate with
an overlapping territory. If the ICP does adopt the rule, it should
apply only to number registration and should not restrict the RIRs
from offering other services on a global basis.

For example, RIPE RIS is not geographically bound and would be of
little utility if it was. Nor was the ARIN policy and actions
authorizing the release of IPv4 address space for RFC 6598
geographically bound.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Tom Beecher

>
> 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 
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 NCCAPNIC   AFRINIC LACNIC
>   ARIN
> IPv6 /322600 EUR1000 AUD5000 USD2750 USD
>   1000 USD
> ASN 2600 EUR0 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 
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 6:52 PM
> To: Howard, Lee 
> Cc: NANOG 
> 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 
> 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
>
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Tom Beecher

>
> 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  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:46 PM Howard, Lee
>  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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread heasley

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.

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 9:39 AM Howard, Lee via NANOG  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

RE: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Howard, Lee via NANOG

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 NCCAPNIC   AFRINIC LACNIC  
ARIN
IPv6 /322600 EUR1000 AUD5000 USD2750 USD
1000 USD
ASN 2600 EUR0 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  
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 6:52 PM
To: Howard, Lee 
Cc: NANOG 
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  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-19 Thread Leo Vegoda

Hi Bill,

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 at 22:01, William Herrin  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

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-18 Thread Tom Beecher

Ok.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 7:05 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:01 PM Tom Beecher  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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:01 PM Tom Beecher  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-18 Thread David Conrad via NANOG

Hi Lee,

On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Howard, Lee via NANOG  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

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:22 PM Howard, Lee
 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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

RE: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-18 Thread Howard, Lee via NANOG

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 
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 5:57 PM
To: Howard, Lee 
Cc: NANOG 
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  
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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-18 Thread David Conrad via NANOG

Hi Noah,

On Nov 18, 2024, at 1:07 PM, Noah  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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-18 Thread Tom Beecher

>
> 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  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:35 PM Tom Beecher  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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:46 PM Howard, Lee
 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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

RE: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

2024-11-18 Thread Howard, Lee via NANOG

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  On Behalf 
Of William Herrin
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Noah 
Cc: NANOG 
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  wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG,  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:35 PM Tom Beecher  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
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024