[cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN?

Hi Jim, all, 

Thanks for the reply, and apologies for the delayed response - some comments below: 

> On 19 Feb 2020, at 01:37, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10 Feb 2020, at 11:24, Chris Buckridge <chrisb at ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 ... So the decision to send this request to ICANN was not the RIPE NCC’s alone.
> 
> I never suggested it was.
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> Thanks for the response Chris. I’m even more confused now.

Sorry about that - we are certainly getting into the minutiae of the RIR-ICANN relationship, but these are important points, I think we agree on that. 

> According to the ASO MoU, one the NRO/ASO AC’s responsibility is "providing advice to the Board of ICANN on number resource allocation policy”. There is nothing in that MoU which says the NRO/ASO AC can advise the ICANN Board about anything else. Though I'm sure the board is happy to receive such advice - even on topics which are out of scope for the ASO.

This request did not come from the ASO Address Council (AC) - it was developed and sent from the NRO Executive Council (EC). As you note, such a request would likely be out of scope for the AC (which is made of up three community members from each RIR region and has a quite specific role under the ASO MoU: https://aso.icann.org/advisory-council/address-council-members/). 

> The NRO’s MoU says it serves "as the coordinating mechanism of the RIRs to act collectively on matters relating to the interests of the RIRs”. That *might* allow some wiggle room to comment on the PIR sale. But I’m struggling to find a justification. At the very least, I would have expected some sort of community consultation to take place beforehand -- “Here’s what we’ll send to ICANN. Any comments?” -- or to have involved the ASO AC/NRO NC in preparing that advice. Neither of those things seems to have happened.

I think you are getting closer to the NRO Executive Council’s position here. ICANN is a signatory (along with each of the five RIRs) to the Service Level Agreement regarding management of the IANA IP address registries (https://www.nro.net/sla-for-iana-numbering-services/), so the stability (if not viability) of ICANN is a matter that is quite specifically "relating to the interests of the RIRs”. 

My understanding is that each of the NRO Executive Council members liaised with their respective RIR Boards ahead of sending the request. While we have endeavoured to be fully transparent with the community about this request, the IANA services SLA is signed by the RIR organisations, so the RIR CEOs have their own very specific concern in relation to ICANN’s stability and operation, separate to any explicit community interest or support. 

This is all, of course, with the understanding that the request itself specifically does not take any position on the sale of PIR or ICANN’s role in the related processes. In the (unlikely) event that the RIPE NCC (or NRO) found it prudent or necessary to take any such position, that would be shared and discussed in advance with the community. 

> It’s perfectly fine for the NRO (or one of its personas) to act on behalf of the numbering community. And when the need arises, do that on a numbering issue without community input. That’s one of the things it’s tasked to do.
> 
> However it’s not fine to do that on matters that are out of scope - at least not unless there was some bottom-up demand for the community to act. Apart from this thread’s meta discussion, I’ve not seen any comments on any RIPE list concerning the PIR sale. Maybe things were different on the lists at the other RIRs.
> 
> What I’m looking for is the community input and endorsement to support the NRO/ASO advice to the ICANN board. If this doesn’t exist, that raises serious questions of transparency, accountability and mission creep.
> 
> It’s still not clear who decided to send that advice to ICANN board, why they did it and why/how it was in scope for some permutation of ASO AC/NRO NC/NRO/ASO.
> 
> So, for the second time could somebody please explain?
> 
> PS If the ASO AC/NRO NC/NRO/ASO considers the sale of PIR to be a significant Internet governance event, it sets an ugly precedent. Will it interfere in a proposed change of ownership or status of any other TLD? Perhaps it could get dragged in to the battles over .amazon or something like that. I would hope the ASO AC/NRO NC/NRO/ASO kept well away from these sorts of issues.

I think we definitely agree that the RIRs should not get dragged into arguments over specific policy changes or disagreements relating to the domain name system. However, given the relationship that exists between the RIRs, their policy-making communities, and ICANN, the RIRs have a clear interest in ensuring that ICANN’s authority and legitimacy is reinforced at all times by a strong adherence to its fundamental principles and processes. I would see the NRO Executive Council's request in that light.

I hope that clarifies at least the rationale behind the decision. 

Cheers,
Chris