Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.

RIPE NCC Statement on IANA

iana internet coordination news

The RIPE NCC executive board,representing the RIPE NCC membership, has considered the draft articles and bylaws for the new IANA published jointly by NSI and the IANA on September 17th. We note that there are a considerable number of substantive changes from those previous draft documents published by the IANA which we publicly supported as the basis for further development. Given the number and the substance of the changes there has been insufficient time for due consideration and consultation. Yet the authors of the latest drafts indicate that they wish to proceed 'within a day or two'.

With this in mind we have to state now that at this time the RIPE NCC cannot support the current drafts or commit to participate in a new IANA constituted by them.

We need sufficient time to consider all the changes and in particular:

  • Codifying in the bylaws that the new IANA will a-priori respect arrangements between third parties without any knowledge of them. This requires careful consideration because of the far reaching implications such arrangements may have on the new IANA. (IV/1d)

  • We need to understand and consider the material consequences of art IV/1e in order to determine whether it is acceptable.

  • We are still concerned about the room for interpretation in art V/6 and would like to see a stronger requirement of diversity than allowing 50% of the board to be from one region.

  • We need to understand and consider the far-reaching repercussions of codifying, at this stage, aspects of a possible membership structure that previously were left for the Initial Board to define and implement. In this context we also need to re-evaluate the fact that the board members nominated by the supporting organisations have no say at all in how it is implemented (V/4b/iv V/9c).

  • We need to understand the reasons and the material consequences of the weakening of the language in VI/c which now speaks of recommendations by the supporting organisations to the board.

  • We need to get clarification that the change in wording of art III/2 does not now imply that minutes of supporting organisation bodies have to be approved by the Board of the new IANA.

  • We need to fully understand and consider the consequences of the changes made to the requirements for supporting organisations, especially VI/2 and VI/3b. In the area of the address supporting organisation the participation of individuals and individual organisations currently happens at the local and regional levels. We need to understand whether the bylaws allow for this practice to continue or if they constrain the supporting organisations sufficiently to require changes in these structures. We stress that we have no issue with the added openness requirements.

We will work to resolve the remaining issues with all parties concerned as soon as possible. The upcoming series of RIPE and related meetings in Edinburgh between September 21st and 25th will provide a good opportunity to make progress in our geographical area.

We urge all concerned not to proceed with the current proposal before these concerns are addressed and we have had the opportunity to ensure that the RIPE NCC can participate fully in the new IANA. In the meantime the current IANA should continue to function and provide its services to us. We are willing to immediately and unilaterally contribute US$ 50k towards the operational costs of the current IANA after September 30th.