The ICP-2 Review — RIR Governance Document Consultation was held at APNIC 60 on Wednesday, 11 September 2026. Asia Pacific representatives of the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) — Akinori Maemura, Nicole Chan, and Di Ma — presented the revised RIR Governance Document and addressed community feedback and questions during the open mic sessions.
Below is a summary of comments and questions received.
1. General support and endorsement
A commenter encouraged community feedback on the document, expressing hope that it will uphold fair distribution principles and support a stable Internet number registry system. Another welcomed the inclusion of values like transparency and impartiality in Article 4.
2. AFRINIC incident
A question was raised about whether the document could have prevented the AFRINIC incident. Akinori Maemura noted it likely wouldn’t have, but the updated version will support future Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Nicole Chan added that AFRINIC’s issues are now legal and highlighted the need to strengthen governance of the Internet Number Registry System, given that the ICP-2 document is 25 years old.
3. Corporate governance (Article 4.1(e))
A commenter felt the phrase ‘good corporate governance’ in Article 4.1(e) was too vague and suggested referencing specific standards. Akinori Maemura explained that governance varies by jurisdiction, so general principles are used to accommodate different RIR structures.
4. Sub-Regional Registries (Article 2.6(b)(ii))
A commenter raised concerns about Article 2.6(b)(ii), noting it gives broad discretion to RIRs in sub-delegating resources, which could undermine transparency and inclusiveness. They suggested more consultative wording. Another concern was that Sub-Regional Registries could be misused to bypass the safeguards highlighted in the RIR Governance Document. In response, Akinori Maemura clarified that this is an implementation issue and APNIC must ensure decisions align with the RIR Governance Document.
5. RIR status (Articles 2.3(a)(iii) & (iv))
Concerns were raised about Articles 2.3(a)(iii) and (iv), noting that new RIRs would need approval from existing RIRs, making approval unlikely. Akinori Maemura acknowledged the conflict and pointed to the new dispute resolution section. Additional comments highlighted that National Internet Registries (NIRs) lack voting rights, and that ICANN’s recognition process places too much burden on applicant RIRs, suggesting it should instead fall on those objecting.
6. Voting rights and recognition process
A commenter questioned the proposed threshold of 25% of an RIR’s total members to request an ad hoc audit of their RIR, noting that APNIC currently uses a two-thirds majority of votes cast to amend its by-laws, a method they believe is more practical and better aligned with APNIC’s governance. They also suggested that thresholds should be tailored to each region.
In response, Akinori Maemura explained that setting a universal threshold is challenging due to differences in RIR membership structures. Another comment cautioned that allowing RIRs to define their own thresholds could lead to misuse if governance is compromised.
You can still share your feedback — join the webinar
Akinori Maemura, Nicole Chan, and Di Ma will hold a webinar on Tuesday, 21 October, from 14:00 to 15:00 (UTC +10) for the community to share more feedback.
To support community feedback, a redline version of the document, which highlights the differences between version 1 and version 2, is available. In addition, the NRO NC has published the RIR Governance Document Version 2: Summary of Differences and Rationale for Changes, which explains the major differences between the two versions. It also explains why certain suggestions, while thoughtful and interesting, did not make their way into the second draft.
Please consider the following when preparing your comments:
- Please share feedback that is specific to this draft. Constructive comments are highly appreciated.
- The NRO NC is particularly interested in hearing your views on whether the draft addresses questions and concerns with the previous draft.
- Please note that feedback on implementation is out of scope for this consultation.
You can provide your feedback via the ICP-2 Review mailing list — subscribe to the list now! The deadline to submit your comments is 7 November 2025.
The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of APNIC. Please note a Code of Conduct applies to this blog.