Dear Herve and team
I’m writing to express concern on the continued issue of the unanimity clause in the Recognition section, 2.3(a). This new version has not resolved this fundamental problem: recognition of a new RIR requires unanimity among incumbent RIRs.
I’m new to the rough consensus policy-making style at this scale, please forgive the redundancy.
It is well established in organizational governance that unanimity is inherently difficult to achieve. This requirement effectively grants veto power to incumbent RIRs. Making recognition of a new RIR extremely challenging.
Recognition approval is made even more challenging because of a conflict of interest on the part of at least one incumbent RIR, where a new RIR would carve out of an existing service region and revenue. Although the additional process for the Candidate RIR to object the decision (2.3.a.v) is a positive measure, it’s rendered ineffective as the final decision is still with the with incumbent RIRs without any obligation to follow the recommendations of the appointed independent third party.
For a community to gather sufficient support and to reach a point of proposing a new RIR is no small feat. So it is excessive to have a process where the community proposal can be vetoed by its current secretariat organization (i.e. their current conflicted RIR) or any other incumbent RIR.
Additional concerns I have include:
- Lack of Clear Timelines: The governance document does not specify firm timelines for the processes, creating potential for indefinite delays or obstructions.
- Lack of Community Recourse: Recognition requires community support, but the process provides no direct channel for the regional community to appeal or challenge incumbent RIR decisions independently. The community’s influence is filtered through incumbent RIRs.
This governance dynamic risks suppressing legitimate regional interests and is it odds with the bottom-up, community-driven model.
There may be several ways to address these challenges, and I would be happy to share some ideas if these concerns are deemed valid.
I’d like to reiterate my thanks to the committee and say that your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Osama Al-Dosary
dosary@solyton.com
On 30 Oct 2025, at 2:19 AM, herve.clement@orange.com wrote:
Dear all,
The NRO NC will meet in person over 12-14 November to discuss the feedback received across all RIR and ICANN communities, therefore it will not be possible to accommodate requests to extend the deadline.
Thank you to everyone who has made the effort to review the document and share feedback so far.
Regards,
Hervé, Constanze and Andrei
Orange Restricted
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
-----To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/