+1 On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:08 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
see below an answer to a recent question on CPWG regarding "why did the NRO/ASO make a request to ICANN?"
I am not sure it answers the question "why did they make the request to ICANN when they are all Organisational Members of ISOC and they could have made the request to ISOC?"
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN? Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:24:54 +0100 From: Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> <chrisb@ripe.net> To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> <jim@rfc1035.com> CC: RIPE Cooperation Working Group <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> <cooperation-wg@ripe.net>
Dear colleagues,
Jim, you’ve raised an important point here, and I wanted to give an answer from the RIPE NCC perspective, particularly given some of the complexities involved. First, it is important to note that this is a request to the ICANN Board from the NRO Executive Council (the five RIR CEOs, including, at the current time, the RIPE NCC interim management team*), in their role as the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO), which is itself an entity within ICANN’s Empowered Community (the structure established following the IANA stewardship transition and the work of the ICANN Cross-Community Working Group on Accountability). So the decision to send this request to ICANN was not the RIPE NCC’s alone. The text of the request itself attempted to detail the reasoning, but I am happy to paraphrase: the ASO (that is, the five RIR organisations) believes that any decision made by ICANN in regard to the PIR sale would represent a significant Internet governance event, not simply in relation to its impact on the DNS; as such, it would be an important decision for ICANN, its board, the organisation and the community. As a “Decisional Participant in the Empowered Community”, the ASO felt it important to be fully aware of all relevant information ahead of any such decision being made, in the interests of due diligence. The RIPE NCC is, of course, committed to ensuring that our community and membership are informed of any developments in relation to this request or the RIRs’ relationship with ICANN. Best regards,
Chris
Chris Buckridge Head of External Relations RIPE NCC
* The RIPE NCC interim management team is made up of the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Information Officer. Please note, however, that Kaveh Ranjbar, as both the RIPE NCC Chief Information Officer and a non-voting member of the ICANN Board (as the RSSAC Liaison) has recused himself from any discussions relating to this matter.
On 6 Feb 2020, at 12:39, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2020, at 11:27, Nick Hilliard (INEX) <nick@inex.ie> <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
Can someone point out the bit in this letter which strives for transparency? I'm struggling to find it.
I’m struggling to find the bit which makes the sale of PIR a matter for the NRO/ASO.
Why is a body representing the *numbering* community getting itself involved in an issue for the *naming* community?
I don’t recall seeing much (any?) discussion of the PIR sale on RIPE’s lists. So with little or no bottom-up input I don’t understand how this issue made its way on the ASO/NRO’s agenda.
Can somebody explain?
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.