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

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

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 at ripe.net>
To: 	Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
CC: 	RIPE Cooperation Working Group <cooperation-wg at 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 at rfc1035.com> wrote:
>
> On 6 Feb 2020, at 11:27, Nick Hilliard (INEX) <nick at 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?
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200210/5bef8a52/attachment.html>