RIPE 90
12 May 2025
Side room.
BoF.
HERVE CLEMENT: Hello, good not evening yet but hello everybody, you can have a seat. You have some place to do.
OK I think we can start, just so we decided just to sit in front of you to have not something very intimate courses, not very didactic, we want just to have a contact session about something which is very famous, which is called ICP‑2. You know that perfectly, even me two years ago, I did not absolutely know it was an ICP, now I know. I will just from the beginning present. I can, I can do. So we have Constanze Buerger and Andrei Robachevsky, so from the NRO NC, we will say, so today, elected from the community on the executive board of the RIPE NCC. We'll just present you, just to give the context, a few slides, we will present very quickly, just to have for you. It's important to have the discussion and ask questions, we will gather you back about the document, we will represent there, I don't know if we will have the possibility to answer all the questions you have, I don't know because there could be question, we will need to together or within the conceal to answer the question, all the very qualified people in the room or so, one more time, it will be a discussion. Our wish is to discuss about the content of the document, not specifically the frame of the document, knowing that it's not the final document, it's a draft.
You have the possibility to provide feedback on it, so it's absolutely not finished and what is very important for us one more time is to have your support and your different comments on that.
It's a BoF, during RIPE90, it's about ICP‑2. We will present what is the background, there was another consultation that was about the principle of the document, we will introduce what is the current document, you can provide feedback on, which is called so this time it's RIR governance document and there will be the open discussion I was talking about.
And ICP is an internet co‑ordination policy, and this one is a 2 and this document provides criteria for recognising new regional internet registries, example of has to be sufficiently large for the service region, it has to have the support of the local numbers community, it's another criteria and it has to be technical capability and if you want to read something about these documents, you have the link here.
It was adopted, this document in 2001. So after the establishment of the ICANN, of the ARIN and RIPE NCC, we have this document, the LACNIC was established in 2002 and the AfriNIC was established in 2005.
It was adopted, this document, in 2001, we are in 2025, if I am OK with that, so this document is nearly 25 years old. The internet has changed had since then and the relationship between RIRs and the ICANNs have changed as well, it's necessary now to update this document and it needs to be more explicit or so because one more time I say that this document explicit was a recognition of the new regional internet registries but it's not used yet for the ongoing life of the regional internet registry and it has to be in extreme case useful for the recognition, it's very, very necessary too.
As Hans Peter presented during the plenary this afternoon, there was at the beginning of 2024 the review of ICP‑2, we did, we draft the first document, we presented the principle of what could be the document, to the community, you had the possibility to comment on the first document during Q4, 2024. We met in Kuala Lumpar to analyse the document, we provided the analysis of that and we provided a new draft and you have now the possibility to comment on the new draft in parallel of the ICANN or so.
And I think it's you, Constanze.
CONSTANZE BUERGER: I try to explain some more what did we do. OK. What did we do, based on the ICP‑2 the old one from 2001, we took this document and we drafted principles, we thought about the principles really engaged and these principles were shared with the RIRs in the last year and we got feedback on the 6th December. ICANN public comments, we received 14 responses and from the RIR communities, we got around about 300 responses.
The responses were analysed and a summary report of the RIR questionnaire was published. You will see this on the next slide, we have done a lot of work and you can see a lot of our inputs and our analysis team in this website.
What did we do.
We took every principle and we took every comment, we took every line, every column and we read it and a part team of us took this and classed this and then we summarised that. So for instance, there had been some issues, there's a need for balance of authority between the NRO EC and ICANN, for instance, a very important point. Giving ICANN the final authority could contradict the independency of the of the RIRs, ICANN might gain a lot of power. That's important issues that we figured out we bundled that and clustered and that we decided to talk over these points in the drafting document, what you know, the RIR governance document.
You can see all principles in the report incorporating community feedback, all the comments received were reviewed and categorised. Did they pertain to the principle itself, the phrasing of the principle or the future implementation of the principle.
So this we figured out. The comments were clustered as I mentioned and these concerns, we saw in the comments, we summarised and added to worksheet. The NRO NC discussed these concerns really heavy, we are 12 people from 12 other cultures with 12 other backgrounds and the discussions had been hot. Depending on this feedback, we decided whether it was within scope and if we wanted to address it in the new draft of our new document.
So what have we done so far.
We clarified the role of the community, an RIR decision implies a process that's necessary according to the RIR governance model. We addressed procedural concerns. We aligned the requirements with common privacy and corporate governance, or elaborated where necessary to address questions about the principles.
So now Andre can introduce the next.
ANDREI ROBACHEVSKY: Yes, I am taking the last and interesting part. That's presenting the area document and the title itself, it's a working title, it's not the final. It's not ICP something because ICP series was sort of created back in 2001 and then was not really maintained and there's no underlying process so I think with this document, we'd like to establish a new series of documents but the title is up for grabs, I mean you can comment on the title as well.
What Constanze said, we also analysed all the input taking some of the constraints and one of the constraints was the ICP‑2 a high‑level document and there was a lot of comments regarding implementation, people started they go thinking how it can be implemented in reality. This is interesting feedback but you you will not see it in this document, we looked at the visibility of the principle but the language, how it could be implemented it outside, now all this feedback is collected and saved and hopefully will be used by developing procedures, how those principles of this document can be, another thing there was some radical suggestions, I have to say and the scope was we are not going to redesign the RIR system, the RIR system proved to be good and well functions, this is really an update, not a reset of the system so the constraints is the document.
Right. That's another QR code, you can scan down the document, hopefully many of you read the document and made your mind, I have your thoughts about this.
But basically, it has a slightly different structure from the ICP‑2, making a dif would be a difficult thing and not very useful in this context but I would like to introduce what was really a change compared to the ICP document.
The first and probably the most visible part is that right now we look at a whole lifecycle management of an RIR, ICP‑2 really looked at the creation and conditions and what are requirements an organisation need to meet in order to be recognised as an RIR and it was very silent or vague about what happens next, right. So first thing of course is how this area was implied that it should adhere to the same principles as it was presenting at the time of recognition, that was not explicit in the document.
And of course if you look at organisation lifecycle, yes shut down and winding down of an organisation is an important part, you can't just drop this at that point and not consider the last point.
So that's why all three phases I include in this document, the requirements are clearly stated for all three phases.
So it formalises it's more clear about the governance and the governance structure, ICP‑2 is less formal in this respect but important things also you can see in the ICP‑2 is that it's a member controlled governance, right, or you may say it's bottom up, some people say this language is absent in the document but I think this period, we didn't use this word of art but it is in the spirit of this document. The corporate governance should adhere to best practices, that sort of sounds normal. Again we thought it important to explicitly state it here and also very important that it has the governance some safeguards, from capture, not one individual or group of individuals or affiliates or organisations can take and control and influence in the governance.
Well as far as operations or regular operations are concerned, the requirements again are more explicit, they are extended including for instance audit obligations, transparency of all the documents that should be published and continue to planning ‑‑ continuity planning, for instance Constanze mentioned privacy concerns, for instance we praised the continuity planning that it doesn't impede on the privacy so for instance there is no requirements that area share the data necessarily but there's some procedures that improve that might be a third party escrow, something like this, we don't go into implementation but we address the continuity measures should be in place.
And finally well we got into the comments who makes the decision, who has authority and how decisions are made, if you look at the ICP‑2, there's only ICANN that has authority and final decision, the rest is outside, sort of not very much spelled out.
In this version of the document, you can see that RIRs play much more important role, when we say RIRs, we are not meaning Hans Petter or John but we mean the area governance process which might include board decisions or voting, we don't know, this document is not to define governance structures or policy methods in.individual areas, this document is about high‑level principles.
ICANN ensures final authority to approve or reject proposals, they are also procedures for appeal, approval, recourse, they are defined in this document as well.
So yeah, I think we are now in this sort of discussion feedback mode, that's the guidance we sort of asked for your comments on the mailing list, it partly applies to this discussion I think we can be more informal and we have peer pressure here as well so that we'll be part of the guidance.
And yes, public consultation still exists, hopefully this session will stimulate the discussion on the mailing list, of course we take what we hear here on board, we are not here to sort of argue with you, right, we are here as I say we are a sponge, right, we are here to accept your feedback and your concerns, so don't get mad at us if we are not answering your concerns, if we are saying saying yes and nodding, it doesn't mean that we necessarily agree with you or necessarily a document but we are taking this on board of course. We will report to the community back I think on Thursday, at the community plenary what happened here. And yeah, we are at the stage to open discussion.
HERVE CLEMENT: Thank you Constanze and Andre for that and it's very important to say that this discussion, we'll have today, we are from the community as well like you, we are friends, I don't know ‑‑ the idea is really discuss what you will say and provide will be just very interesting for us, not only more or less, it will be just interesting and Ulka, you will have the opportunity to have online questions or so.
SPEAKER: I saw Randy in the queue who raised his hand on Meetecho before people got up to the mics. Please log into Meetecho if you like.
RANDY BUSH: Randy Bush. First, thank you. This probably was not very much fun and it was certainly hard work and as they say, thank you for your service, I think it's a great start. But it's a start and I'm not that much of a rush to so thank you for listening. I did take some notes, I noticed there was first the principles document but that's not referred to in this document and in fact this document doesn't have goals up front and I suggest goals like, comments I will make are just ideas, not I want X, I don't have the right to want X and I don't mean things that way but stability, stewardship, fairness, inclusiveness, representative, all resource holders are RIR members, OK.
Then I noticed there's an ambiguous role in the NRO, sometimes the RIRs go to the NRO, sometimes the RIRs go directly, is the NRO a first class organisation and I don't have an opinion. Right. But clarify that please.
There's loose language, for instance it says RIRs are exclusive, have exclusive areas. Is there an RIR for IPv6 area, an IPv4 area? You left out the word geographic, right, so just loose language like that. For lawyers, come on!
It's a mechanics count as opposed to the principles document but it leaves out some of the mechanics. Some is intentional, I am sure as Andre mentioned, the escrow problem and if RIPE fails, where is it its data, how is it restored, is it restored in another RIR and I am sure you don't, RIPE doesn't want its data in the Amazon cloud, thank you very much. I don't blame you. The NCC. So and then whose policies are followed, right, if we take the AfriNIC data and try to run AfriNIC from RIPE until AfriNIC comes RIPE again, are AfriNIC policies followed or RIPE policies followed? OK, that's by the way not my idea, a friend of mine brought that to my attention and I am sure he speaks for himself. And lastly, it says phrases like recognising the candidate RIR will not negatively impact the internet numbers registry system, not impact, measured how? I am an internet measurement guy, without the goals up front, how can I judge what's negative impact and what's positive impact? Right? So I have rambled on for too long, my apologies, again, thank you very much.
HERVE CLEMENT: Very quickly, you have not to apologise, it's more than interesting what you say so we'll have a lot to time to analyse so the comments you say. Thank you for your support, so our request stated everybody to do their own work to read the document, so you did and thank you. It's very difficult to balance between the details and the principle as you say, so that's a thing, it's a continuing ongoing discussion about that. There are too many things finally in your comments but we'll go back on that, be sure of that.
One more time, we'll try not to go into more details about that, I don't know if you want to add something.
CONSTANZE BUERGER: Yes I wanted to the thank you, Randy, as well, you are highly experienced and so we can learn a lot of stuff from you, I did. And so we take your comments very seriously and so thank you for this.
RANDY BUSH: And thank you for keeping the presentation short so we can actually as a community discuss, this is the only operations community I go to any more. NANOG is dead, ARIN is dead, APNIC is dead, it's the only cooperative, I hope you all went to the first presentation of the plenary, this is the last standing forest.
(APPLAUSE.)
SPEAKER: I see lots of people in the queue who are at the mic so the order of the queue is Andrew, David, Jordi, Warren and I see you standing in perfect order. Great!.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Building on those really thoughtful comments from Randy but in a very small way, Andrew, I read the document and in my head it seemed to have this, the underlying assumption that all of the RIRs were acting in good faith and there was comments on the mailing list about the voting model in particular and the unanimity and I know that's sort of partially addressed in the draft text.
But it does seem like the model is vulnerable to attack from external parties that aren't frankly acting in good faith. And I do wonder whether rather than just relying on unanimity or the unanimity of everyone bar one RIR, which still feels pretty vulnerable, should allow for a majority in certain specific circumstances rather than unanimity of even all bar one, if that makes sense.
So I think it doesn't recognise the world that we are in, this forest, I think we are well past the deforestation stage and if there is an attack by an actor with bad intentions, it's not that hard to undermine the model with the draft as it currently is so I suggest think about majority voting in very limited contained circumstances.
HERVE CLEMENT: Yes, thank you, very interesting, as you can imagine, there have been a lot of discussion about that. There was a succession, it was by the ICP the constituency for ICP on the interconnection so within the ICANN, to test with document with a specific use case, so to see how this document and this principle could react so to a specific cases, and perhaps it's something so we could think about.
ANDREI ROBACHEVSKY: I think that's something to think about. The reason the so strong requirements were introduced because we valued the need for co‑operation and buy in from the RIRs and that was the main reason, I see your point about vulnerability and blocking so yes, something to consider, certainly, thank you.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Very basic question but really related, I was looking at a report of the comments on ICP‑2 and it says in multiple places, comments received multiple times, do you mean literally, are we looking at people repeatedly submitting the same thing, are we already concerned about things going a weird way or does it mean roughly the same content or could you clarify a little bit?
HERVE CLEMENT: I start, if you want to add something, we tried to be very careful about that, it was multiple comments, perhaps, I don't remember exactly received within a week or something, perhaps, and we say similar, why, to save us some idea, our principle because we are principle also is really to consider and to analyse any input we have.
It's like in policy discussion, when you want to agree on something, it's not a vote. It's an agreement, it's a consensus.
So if you have 50 answers with the same ideas, it's an idea. Finally, so we try to do the best as we can with that.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Jordi. Basically I have to I have two points that I think we need to consider especially with the document, one of them is regarding the unanimity, it has been discussed already in the mailing list, here, etc. I think I understand from where it comes from, I guess it comes basically because you may have weaker regions, somehow, and maybe the stronger regions can confabulate against the weaker regimes, OK, I understand that but if we have a clear recognition rationale, if the derecognition only happens if you are not complying, that cannot happen. So I think we should not stick to the unanimity, I think it should be let's say at least three registries instead of four, OK.
That's one point. The second point is I am really worried about if we derecognise a registry, how we really do the hand over. I understand that is probably not part of this document and there is operational implications afterwards but I really think we need to have something about that in the document and my last point, a few weeks ago, I discovered and I raised this conversation in two registries actually that individuals without economical activity cannot get resources while in the other three, AfriNIC, APNIC and RIPE NCC, they can get resources. I don't think this is a policy discussion, even if there are right now policy proposals in those two registries but I think this is part of the basis of the recognition of a registry and in fact there is some text in the actual draft that talks about membership in the registries and this week I think it must explicitly say that any human in the world must be able never mind if it's an organisation, a physical person or a natural person with economical activity or without economical activity must be able to get resources, I think it's almost a human right, almost.
For example, if we consider what happened a few weeks ago in Spain was the lack of power, there was people dying. In the future, we will see situations where people with lost totally connectivity with the hospital may die and I can see perfectly not many cases but there will be cases where individuals may need multihoming and we know that today multihoming which IPv6 is not possible if you don't have your own provider... it's an extreme example, I know, but I really think there must be no difference between persons with or without economical activity so and I am starting to think that maybe there are other basic rights to say somehow like this one, that are not really part of the PDP, it must be part of the fundamentals of being a registry, maybe we need to consider a basic set of let's say features to become a registry or to remain as a recognised registry. Thank you.
HERVE CLEMENT: Thank you. I always say so we can spend perhaps two hours, to come in on that because it's really important and it's really significant and your input will be used and regarding the one or two points you raised about the last point there, there have been discussions within the ARIN mailing list and the other regions so it will feed the discussion as well. I don't know if you want to provide something else?
ANDREI ROBACHEVSKY: Not a direct response to that comment but just a general spirit of the document that we tried not to impose, supremecy kept at the regional level, right, so policy I mean we can argue whether it's policy or whether it's not a policy but we didn't think it was appropriate some of the policies or rules on existing in the region already where they should be discussed in the region itself by this document. That was again not agreeing with you ‑‑ not arguing with you right now but just saying why it's not there, those kind of things.
The same, there were questions on the mailing list about RIPE to buy IP addresses for instance, it might conflict with regional address space for instance in this case and that would be maybe not appropriate for ICP‑2 to impose that on the region.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Apparently I keep falling out of the queue, Warren. I am glad Randy is here because I am going to steel one of his old /KRAFP phrases which is where's the protein. I found the document a bit tricky to read, I started adding comments and backing them Ondrej writing them again, it feels to me oddly between a high‑levels principles document an the actual implementation, things like business continuity, that sounds great. In order for that, youly need escrow, that's probably reasonable, not saying where or how it should be, that sort of stuff, I am having a hard time figuring out where the rubber meets the road here. There's a lot of things which are we agreed that these sort of things should be done but without the much more detailed and this is how they are going to happen, it's hard for at least me to be like yes, this sounds reasonable, that sounds reasonable, it feels like a mixture between the actual mechanics and the high‑level principles and so this is not a particularly useful comment but...
HERVE CLEMENT: Don't think it's not useful because more one time as we say in French, we are... we say that we are cycle and we just see the road and perhaps we don't see the way people can react and can read the document and the way you read it, the question you ask is or so useful to see if, so this document will be useful or not.
ANDREI ROBACHEVSKY: I think I know what you mean, there is a bit, the document a little bit ecclectic in that sense, we try to keep it at the level of escrow that you described, it's really sort of we didn't want to go into implementation, still in come places of the document you see more detrailed prescription, that was done because could he couldn't avoid this, there was so many comments on clarity on how decisions and those sort of major phases where you need to derecognise or recognise an area, we felt that needs to be somehow sort of, you know like there must be references for that. We didn't feel that needed in the case of like escrow or audit specifics how audit an the frequency, this kind of stuff should be provided so.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I forgot to say at the mic thank you for doing this.
HERVE CLEMENT: Thank you.
CONSTANZE BUERGER: One more comment, it's necessary to review this from your side and every input is really important and also Jordi, so I think we live in a new time and we have to figure out how we have to save our infrastructure and this is important thing that we are engaged to do this, now and this phase we are focusing on ICP‑2, on this phase but let's discuss it, how should it go forward in a better way and we shall take all inputs how our multistakeholder infrastructure we can save. So the comment to say thank you for every input, thanks.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Geoff Heuston, I crave your indulgence, I am a member of the the stuff of APNIC, I am speaking here as a longstanding member of the community and nothing I say is represented or held necessarily as a view by APNIC, they can figure it out for themselves.
Having been involved at the start of this many, many, moons ago and looking at what you are doing now, what I observe is the translation from the principles document into the draft becomes extremely prescriptive in both operations and derecognition. The operation section kind of intrigues me a lot. It borrows a lot from the highly prescriptive language used in the IETF, the musts, the shoulds, the imperative language, which one assumes as a casual reader applies to the existing requires as new obligation that somehow comes from something other than the membership and community that they are based in.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Hear hear!.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: That was a hear hear from on my left. The issue was though, the original ICP and the underlying thinking was that the community, the regional community that effectively built this RIR to serve that community had some degree of primacy of view rather than owe buying some external condition. The whole relationship with ICANN over global policies was not that we were seeking approval from ICANN, it was we were informing ICANN that we had gone through an agreed procedure of consultation with communities and ticked those procedural boxes the content was never a point of negotiation.
(LIGHT APPLAUSE)
Thank you this. And I sort of read that highly prescriptive language around the operations of RIRs and I find that challenging to reconcile with that historic view of the community grounding of the RIRs and maybe it's the softening of the musts and the shoulds that are inside your draft document might address that issue but I think if we don't maintain a strong principle that we are the organisation which is the expression of that community as its prime raise endebt re, we lose something that I don't think it worth losing, we lose a critical nature of what these RIRs do. Great work. Love your work. Love love you are not doing it and not me, I would never put my hand up for this these days, nevertheless you are asking for feedback, that's the bit I would shape being gentler in what you describe aspirational considerations and possibly derecognition as well, it's a tough line to balance. Thank you.
HERVE CLEMENT: Just to say thank you h I suspected your remarks were useful and I did and I think one more quick and do it to reread the document, having in mind so the principle and just ‑‑ the principle you just mentioned.
PEAKER: Just the order of the queue, John Curran has been waiting for a very long time, the order is John, Salman and I am sorry, Clara and then Daniel after that. We are also have about 15 minutes left so if you are not in the queue now, you will have to keep your comments short towards the end. Thank you.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: John Curran, president CEO of ARIN, I don't have input to this process, this is community and it's your input that we are here for. I am actually, I have feedback for the community in terms of as it's putting its input in, I would ask to help the ASO EC which has a challenging draw, some degree of clarity would be helpful if the.input that they are receiving. Specifically we talk about unanimity, I have a problem with that word... and decision points and there's, it's not necessarily the case that all of the decision points should have the same criteria. So when you get up and speak to the need for unanimous or the need more non‑unanimous or majority, it might be helpful to be very clear about what decision point you are talking about.
There is recognition of RIR, there's sending an RIR to rehab because it's not doing well. And there's derecognition, we have actually running code for the first. In that both LACNIC and AfriNIC were done by unanimous consent of all the RIRs at the time, we haven't done the other two processes, we have no warning code but in any case there are three distinction decisionings, when you are providing input to the ASO AC, it would be great to see when you talk about a decision criteria, what criteria and for what decision, otherwise they are thinking of all the processes. Thank you.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Practical question is not the principle but how is the document going to be used in a realtime scenario. I am thinking of AfriNIC specifically, god forbid it's going to go belly up or something happens, how is this, did you think about how this can help RIRs community to solve the situation.
HERVE CLEMENT: Thank you. We had from the NRO AC saying if we proceed to that job, it is to strengthen the governance system, in something like that. The idea is not to have the AfriNIC as a focus of that, of course, and to have there will be election so pretty soon as well, and so we will see the result of that, that's a way to strengthen it as well. We don't, we will try to make a document that would be useful to strengthen the system globally and we'll see.
ANDREI ROBACHEVSKY: Yeah, I would say of course AfriNIC comes to mind but I think the strengthening part is not in recognition ‑‑ in derecognition but in operation when you look at the audit so we can capture some of the non‑performance earlier and have the possibility to recover and I think that is enhancing the whole system. In the overall governance scheme it's appropriate not to talk about recognition, just in a general sense, about any, if it comes to existence, there should be a way, it's like today in the presentation how we get rid of you, you know, this is part of the normal cycle but I think we should focus on the operation how we can monitor commitment, ongoing commit humanitarian to those principles of existing RIRs.
CONSTANZE BUERGER: Just one more thought and how to improve the situation so we don't want to derecognise an RIR, that's not the aim of this document but you have, we figured out some mechanism how to see what's coming up, that's why.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Clara Wade, AWS, speaking for myself, first of all, thank you very much, you have done an incredible job and it's a huge undertaking to consider all requires, I wanted to call out in the questionnaire feedback reports, there was reference to about 150 comments being nearly identical and that talks about the quality of data.
But if you look at how those votes look like in the strongly disagrees, in almost all of them, they are around 150 as well and so I would say take that with a grain of salt because it feels like in the community there's generally support for the principles and we are having more nuanced conversations around them and what the implementation will look like. That's all.
ANDREI ROBACHEVSKY: Yes, in fact there was cases where people mocked us as disagreed, if you look at the actual comment, there was agreements both for the principle, they disagreed with some little detail make in the text but it said disagree, we found the disagree agreed this rank is not very useful as Herve Herve said, we are not applying quantitative methods like 20 similar comments, it has a lot of weight and others not, we really looked at the quality of the responses so we treated and this 150 was just useful for us not to go through every 150 but just to look at one and analyse that response.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Thank you.
CONSTANZE BUERGER: One more, we worked so many times with this list and some comments did not match with the question so... and they matched to other questions in the document so this is not real disagreement, so other questions had been in this case they agreed under conditions, under special requirements, and this we took and I mentioned we clustered these analysis and phrases and all that and we clustered it together and also when a disagreement was to another agreement in the list, so we packed it to the cluster so we we worked really hard on this.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Yeah, I appreciate that and I think it's important for everyone in the room to know that, thank you.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: Daniel Karrenberg, I am the first and current employee of the RIPE NCC but as everybody else I speak as a long‑term community member. In fact I have been involved in the predecessor of ICP 1 RFC 1366, 1466 and so on, I have been around this block a lot.
I think and this is my main feedback, this is not ready. This is not ready by a long shot. Because if you read it and if you think about scenarios that could happen, it's not helpful. It actually is much, very, very likely to be abused, gamed and misused the way it is written. I am sorry I have to say it this way but this is the way I personally read this.
I think and people have said this before, it is not a good mixture of recalling the principles and then going, making conclusions from them. It doesn't state goals, it states many, many details which are as some people have said, actually Geoff has said actually in the regional purview.
So I don't know how to get out of this. But I don't think if this was passed right now, it would be bad.
I can offer maybe one avenue of rethinking it and that is what do we want looking from the principles or from the goals, do we want to stable our RIR system and I don't think we are going to get that by regulating escrow, the operational details or whatever. I think there's a much better or of much more promising way is by looking at how can we safeguard that the regional process is ‑‑ that the regional processes work and that's a tall order but I think we can recognise a failing RIR not by the way they operate but how their community thinks about them and their community will think about them not only do they operate right but do we trust them and all that thing.
And the way to get rid of an RIR should be to recognise that they don't, no longer have the support of their community and I know it's a tall order and especially in the light of the AfriNIC experience recently, but I think if we think about that and say how can we grasp this concept and make it actionable, then you do a much more justice to the nature of the RIR system than by ticking boxes and I apologise for being as blunt as I am but this is at the stage where I am getting really worried. Thank you.
HERVE CLEMENT: Thank you Daniel and we are not absolutely desperate about your comments. To have a ‑‑ to have this discussion, and I took a boat crash committees test, we could have with the first document apparently what you read about this document is not the good way to do, OK, so I think we realise that, I don't know, we will do this work and seeing what could happen if we use it. It's, I cannot say more about that today. But yes, the community, the community, the process is thing, so we come from the community ourselves so absolutely know that. We will not restart this discussion but continue the discussion because part of the discussion so you it was already said the reserve of the discussion we have the documents you have but it will be, it will evolve.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: One more thing, this is not about the people who do the work, I have been a victim to this approach before and I had a guy called... to tell me in no uncertain terms what was wrong so and one last sentence, don't get caught by your schedule. If you have a goal sort of to publish by this date, it's not god given. Thank you.
ANDREI ROBACHEVSKY: Daniel? When you started, I thought our task is easier because some of the sections should be more detailed and some of the sections less prescriptive, that was my take, before you started that we need to start with a different approach. But I think we also thought of a non‑existing area, a non‑existing community that should adopt certain rules and certain requirements that may not exist per se. Another thing that we were thinking that might be applicable maybe in a different format is that it's not we are trying to create an ideal RIR, an ideal operation but operation that has not impact RIR system as a whole, escrow, is a good example there, you may not have an escrow and you may not care about this but this creates a risk for the whole system, not just for this RIR.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: That point I take about the new community, we have done this and if some community somewhere let's say on convenient news, not to say mars, decides to do things in a way we haven't for seen, yes, we shouldn't put them in an straitjacket saying you need to do it this way and I think what you said, make very clear where the things that need to be in there need to be in there to safeguard the whole system. And only ‑‑ think about whether the things, all the things you have written are actually that and I would think about it but OK, I don't want to held this mic.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I have three minutes left. First of all I want to thank everyone, I think this is a great effort, how you update a document that's lasted 25 years, policy document. I think it's no easy feat and I like most of the comments that I have heard but I just like to reiterate the comments on the unanimity for the recognition, I think it's, I think it's very the mention had the reason it was placed unanimity, there's an assumption that the RIRs will cooperate, that's a very big assumption and not necessarily a wise assumption and I am not ‑‑ I just want to thank everybody, thank you.
HERVE CLEMENT: Thank you. Thank you for, so there is a last question, a good way to use the last two minutes.
ANNA WILSON: Anna Wilson, HeaNet, former ASO EC member, thank you. A thing I learned from my time on the ASO EC, when we were doing stuff that was lower stakes than this and we had a level of detail and we encountered problems with it and reacted by adding more detail, it got worse. That's my comment, thank you.
(APPLAUSE.)
HERVE CLEMENT: Very good approach. So very good to have you, your experience from the former ASO EC member as well.
And it's not the end of the discussion, it is the end of the BoF. We'll have the opportunity, one more time so we'll be available every day from 1.30 to 2, so any of the Meet and Greet place, if you want to continue the discussion with us, we would be very grateful for that, we will talk about this point during the address space working group group Wednesday morning and there will be a recap of the discussion on Thursday at the community plenary and with that, thank you so much.
(APPLAUSE.)
