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 --------
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> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2020, at 11:27, Nick Hilliard (INEX)
<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?