AFRINIC: The Saga Continues

Fri Jan 31 17:38:57 UTC 2020

Ronald,

Speaking only for myself…

As I’ve recently seen complaints about RIRs directed to ICANN (in a different context than the issues at AfriNIC), a bit of clarification may be in order:

>> What can or should be done when a registry goes rogue?

In my view, it is primarily the responsibility of the community served the the RIR to reign it in if it goes rogue.

> And to be clear, I am most definitely *not* talking about
> an investigation performed by what is effectively AFRINIC's parent company,
> ICANN.

ICANN is not the parent company of AfriNIC (or any other RIR, some of which existed prior to ICANN being created). While ICANN recognizes new RIRs (according to https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en) and recognizes “global policies” that reach consensus across all RIRs, there are no policies, processes, or mechanisms by which ICANN can exert any form of control over the RIRs. ICANN performs a set of functions for the RIRs at their request via the IANA functions and can be seen in that light as a service provider to the RIRs.

It is probably most accurate to view ICANN and the RIRs as peer organizations, connected operationally via the IANA functions, which primarily focus on different universes (domain names in ICANN’s case, IP addresses in the RIRs’ case).

> That organization also has more than a little vested interest in
> seeing to it that both of these matters, the IP thefts and the accounting
> irregularities, are all swept under the rug as quickly and as quietly as
> possible.

I’ll admit some curiosity as to what this “more than a little vested interest” might be, however this is simply wrong. Like pretty much everybody else, we have an interest in an accurate and trustable registration database.

> For this reason, I have no doubt whatsoever that both AFRINIC and ICANN
> would vigorously oppose the notion of an independent outside investigation.

As RIR operational matters are outside ICANN’s remit as defined by our Bylaws, at least by my reading, I am skeptical ICANN would even have an opinion.

> And since ICANN calls the tune with respect to all Internet governance
> matters

I suspect the folks at the RIRs, Internet Society, IGF, ITU, W3C, ETSI, IETF, IAB, etc. may not agree with this assertion.

Regards,
-drc
ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200131/d76d89af/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200131/d76d89af/attachment.sig>