<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Lee,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I read your comments when you sent them out on September 17, but I neglected to respond at the time. Please accept this late note of appreciation for your careful review and
feedback.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> ICP2_review <icp2_review-bounces@arin.net>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Lee Howard via ICP2_review<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 17, 2025 6:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> icp2_review@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [ICP2_review] Comments on the RIR Governance Document<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>First, I want to thank the NRO NC for the clear and considerable work they have put into this document. Although I recall extensive work on ICP-2, I think this has exceeded the initial work by an order of magnitude.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I also want to thank the ARIN region members of the NRO NC for their webinar today on the new document. Nick in particular did a great job of providing much of the context for why the document reads as it does. Great job, and thank you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>In reaction to that webinar, I have taken some time to read the document closely. My notes are below, but for reference I also pasted it into a Google Doc where my edits and comments may be clearer in context:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sw1U1o4W7-ZkzsZOHvzYpJycsqQhRbRSgjzkryXU8P4/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sw1U1o4W7-ZkzsZOHvzYpJycsqQhRbRSgjzkryXU8P4/edit?usp=sharing </a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>ORGANIZATION<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Broadly, I think the organization makes sense. There are a few places that I thought were confusing:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1. Use of outline format 1.1(a)(i)(A) made it really difficult to keep track of where I was. It's easier to see the hierarchy with 1.1.1.1.1, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's an accessibility guideline.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2. There are several items in 2.3 that are more fully discussed in later sections. At the least, cross-reference Regonition and Derecognition with their respective sections. To illustrate what I mean, here's a partial outline, showing the same headings repeated:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Preamble<br>
Article 1: Definitions, Interpretation, and Implementation<br>
Article 2: Internet Numbers Registry System<br>
. . .<br>
2.3. Change to RIR Status. <br>
(a) Recognition<br>
(b) Dercognition<br>
(c) ICANN Decision<br>
2.4. Ad Hoc Audit. <br>
. . .<br>
Article 3: Recognition<br>
Article 4: Ongoing Commitments<br>
. . .<br>
4.2 Audit<br>
. . .<br>
Article 5: Emergency Continuity<br>
Article 6: Derecognition<br>
Article 7: Amendment <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>DEFINITIONS<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Generally, I think terms that only appear once do not need to be in the Definitions section; they are better defined <i>in situ,</i> where the context is provided. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Affiliate only appears once, 4.1(o), as part of Control, and only as a participle. Just roll it into the definition of Control. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The ASO MoU doesn't need to be defined up front; spell it out the one time it's mentioned, in the definition of Global Policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The definition of Control refers to control of an entity participating in RIR governance. Every use of the term Control in the document refers to control of the RIR. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Global Policy only appears once.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Internet Numbers Registry System has a definition, but also all of Article 2 describing it. Maybe don't define it early.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resource Holder specifies "registered with an RIR" which excludes the few remaining organizations with delegations directly from IANA.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>RIR Services is very traditional; is support for RPKI an RIR Service? It should be, since it has profound operational implications. Maintenance of IPv6.ARPA and IN-ADDR.ARPA should also explicitly in scope.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>In several cases, it is unclear whether RIR or ICANN refer to the staff, executive, Governing Body, or communities. In some cases (audits, emergency continuity), it might even refer to a contracted third party. It should be explicit--where I think the
community may be deciding something, another person might think the CEO or Board speaks for the community. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>TERMS<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2.3(a)(i) says a Proposal for Recognition must be submitted, but doesn't say what needs to be in it. Hours later, I read section 3.1. Suggest: <span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">by submitting a Proposal for Recognition,
as specified in 3.1, in writing </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>It is unclear how a Candidate RIR and incumbent RIR would negotiate for territory. It's mentioned in 3.1(a), but I would think a Candidate RIR should have support from the affected RIR before event submitting a Proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2.3(a)(v)(C) references 2.3(a)(iii), which is for Approval, but also needs to include the following subsection on Rejection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2.4 "Compliance with this document" is pretty good. But is the audit conducted by ICANN staff, or consultants, and/or in conjunction with the other RIRs? What happens to the audit? Does it go to the ICANN Board, the subject RIR, the full NRO, is it published?
Is the subject RIR expected to respond? Remediate? Appeal? It's weird to have the so far separated from 4.2. Aren't they the same? At the very least, cross-reference them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2.8 "reasonable timeframes" sounds good, but I just want to point out that getting at least one meeting cycle out of every Board and Numbering Community plus ICANN almost certainly requires at least two years. That's after years of building regional support
for a new RIR, or after an RIR is in failure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>3.1(f) I would like to strike "relative to the then-existing state of affairs." It is conceivable that we can see an event happening 2-3 years from now, and take action to improve the system in preparation for that event. If the improvement can only be to
current state, then we have to wait for things to get worse before we can make them better.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>4.1(g) I would like to add "periodically" before "elected." Governing Body members may not be elected for life. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>5.1(a) "<span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">An Emergency Continuity may only be initiated"
</span><span style="color:black">by whom? If a natural disaster affects the RIR HQ and surrounding area, who is authorized to declare an Emergency Continuity (event)?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>5.1(c) "must cooperate" to the extent reasonably possible. In the case of major natural disaster, there may not be anybody who can cooperate. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>5.1(d) "<span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">unless renewed pursuant to the conditions"
</span><span style="color:black">is unclear; there are no renewal provisions. I </span>
propose: "But may be continued by repeating the steps to initiate an Emergency Continuity"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>6.2 I propose to strike "if requested." Several failure modes may leave an RIR without someone to make the request.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>6.2 "<span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">outweigh the benefits of continuing to tolerate"</span><span style="color:black"> I would like to add "or mitigate." It's more consistent with derecognition being a last
resort, and giving the RIR a chance to fix things.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p>WORD CHOICES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Preamble paragraph 3 has a stray space before the first line. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Change<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">This Governance Document for the Recognition, Operation, and Derecognition of Regional Internet Registries (the “RIR Governance Document”) succeeds the document Internet Coordination
Policy‑2...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">to</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">This Governance Document for the Recognition, Operation, and Derecognition of Regional Internet Registries (the “RIR Governance Document”) supersedes the document Internet Coordination
Policy‑2...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">"Succeeds" means "comes after." We intend to replace ICP-2.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2.3(v)(A) replace "outline" with "describe." We need the details, here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2.3(c)(i) change decision to Notice of Decision. Notice of Decision is a defined term, and should be explicitly used here to require ICANN to publish the formal Notice, not just yea or nay.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>4.1(n) replace "community" with "Numbering Community" to make explicit that the RIRs must convene multistakeholder meetings, not just Number Resource Holders or Members.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>5.1 Replace<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> "<span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">If an RIR is unable to adequately provide all or any part of its RIR Services to its Service Region,"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>with<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"> "If an RIR is unable to adequately provide all or any part of its RIR Services for its Service Region,"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">I can imagine failure modes where people inside the region can do WHOIS lookups, validate ROAs, and search ipv6.arpa, but where people outside the region can't reach those services. However, the RIRs have a responsibility to the
global community, not just their region. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Footnote 1, typo in "accessible." Also, please lit the URL rather than buying it under "here"<b>.</b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Again, thank you to the entire NRO NC for all of the work you have put into this. Although my notes here look lengthy, I think you'll see that in almost every case, I agree with what you have done, and propose only minor clarifications. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I look forward to seeing the document ratified!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Lee Howard<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>