They play a important administrative role in certain places and economies, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to develop policies.
I disagree. As David has identified, NIRs may in some cases may have legal mandates set by the governments of their economies relating to the management of address space which may not be relevant to other economies. In these circumstances it would be appropriate for these NIRs to set these policies at an economy level, rather than that of a regional level. Further, some NIR policies may be defined as a means to better serve their communities whereas they could be detrimental to others (not saying that they would).
Allowing this to happen open doors to unnecessary discrepancies, bureaucracy and sometimes unfairness within the same RIR region which should not exist.
Again, I disagree. NIRs that fall under APNIC are seen and treated as regular APNIC members and any relationship between an LIR and an NIR is exactly that - between them. Network operators within NIR service regions are welcome to choose whether to obtain resources directly from APNIC or their NIR and can move their holdings between the two. I don't see how this would open doors to bureaucracy and unfairness, rather it is a transparent process.
I just found really strange when you write a proposal in APNIC having to specify in the text if that policy is to be apply also to the NIRs. This type of things should never be necessary.
To my knowledge, you do not need to expressly state whether a policy applies at an RIR level only or must apply to members of NIRs as well. An NIR is permitted to define their own policies, however, under APNIC's policies any policy defined by an NIR must not conflict with an APNIC policy.
By ICANN ICP-2 that estabilish the criteria for new RIRs and process of Policy Development and don't say a word about NIRs.
The ICP-2 process does not cover the establishment of NIRs, therefore ICP-2 is irrelevant in their discussion. Should the NIR wish to convert to becoming an RIR then yes, ICP-2 would then apply.
Since any resources are allocated to RIRs and than to NIRs they must always be submit to the policies developed solely by that RIR community and that is quiet reasonable.
As NIRs within the APNIC service region are members of APNIC themselves, yes, they are subject to the policies as defined by APNIC and its members through the PDP. NIRs have special agreements and MoUs in place that allow and afford them other roles, responsibilities and functions.
Again, one thing are specific administrative specificity that may be required in certain countries and jurisdictions and another are the policies that are developed by the community of that RIR in a bottom-up process.
If I interpreted that correctly, you said that it's one thing for an NIR to define a policy that is legally mandated, but it's another thing for an RIR to define a policy using a bottom-up approach. If that is correct, the two cannot be compared as the legally mandated policy has a legal requirement for its implementation, whereas policies at an RIR that follow a PDP don't have legal requirements for implementation (in the sense that law states that they must be implemented). If the Australian government were to pass legislation which required APNIC to operate in a certain manner or to implement a specific policy, I'm sure APNIC's legal counsel would be all over it before we even caught wind of it.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
