Summary

  • Internet addressing helps ordinary online communication reach the right destination. The organisations that allocate and register those addresses need usable records, capable staff and a way to recover when their services are in trouble.
  • The Council has proposed regular checks and a clearer route to withdrawing a registry's recognition. Its draft is not yet the rulebook, and the Council is not the team that would run an emergency replacement.

A video call has destinations even when nobody types an address. IP addresses identify where its data should go. Keeping that addressing system dependable takes work beyond the networks carrying the call.

Regional Internet registries do some of that work: they allocate and register number resources. Their job includes keeping the history of earlier address assignments. When an Internet provider returns with another request, that information helps the registry assess it. Lose access to the history and the next assessment lacks material it is supposed to use.

That is one practical stake in a debate about who holds registries to account. The ASO Address Council has been writing new rules for them. But if a registry were unable to do its job, the Council's finished document could not process the next customer's request. Someone would still need the records, the staff and the authority to act.

Fix the service, or find someone who can

The procedures ratified on 24 December 2024 already provide a way to assess serious trouble. They cover substantial risks to the stability and security of Internet identifiers — the names and numbers that let systems distinguish destinations — rather than every complaint about a registry.

The other registries can unanimously ask ICANN to conduct a review. ICANN can also initiate one under limited conditions, but the document expressly rejects a general supervisory role over the registries.

An investigation does not have to end in replacement. ICANN may find no need for further action, agree on a period in which the registry can restore compliance, or conclude that recovery cannot happen in time. Normally, the registry has two weeks to correct factual mistakes in the draft findings. Critical circumstances permit a faster exception.

If timely recovery is not possible, ICANN commits to working with the remaining registries to identify an emergency provider. This is where a neglected detail becomes important: the procedures encourage backups of core registration data and consideration of escrow, meaning custody of that information by another party. The next operator would need more than a new name on the door.

The same document requires technical staff and running infrastructure, including connectivity and support for reverse DNS. It also protects the information collected from customers. Continuity means making the service and its records usable, not turning confidential files into a public archive. The document does not prove that backups have been tested or that an emergency team is already ready. Nor do these sources establish a particular registry outage or intervention.

What the Council can actually change

The Council's influence begins earlier, with the rules and entry into the system. Its published responsibilities include recommending recognition of new registries to the ICANN Board. It also works on global number-resource policies, advice and selection procedures for ICANN bodies. None of that gives it sole power to withdraw an existing registry's recognition or take over its service.

The regions have a direct voice in this work. The Council doubles as the NRO Number Council, with three members from each regional registry. Its foundation is shared too: Article 9 of ICANN's bylaws points to the memorandum between ICANN and NRO, not just to an ICANN rule in isolation.

That arrangement has been reviewed. The November 2019 Board decision authorised an updated memorandum following a 2018 organisational review with 18 recommendations. It records a review and an update, not proof that every recommendation was implemented.

The latest drafting work reached a handover on 28 July 2026. The Council completed its third recommended draft and passed responsibility to the Number Resource Organization Executive Council, or NRO EC. Review and coordination with ICANN and the registries remained ahead. Completing the text was not adopting it.

A regular inspection, not just an emergency response

The September account of the proposal describes audits every five years, rehabilitation plans and a more detailed route to withdrawing recognition. The last of those would involve support from two-thirds of the registries, excluding the one concerned, as well as ICANN's review and decision-making role.

The promise is scrutiny before a crisis and a clearer path when repair fails. It remains a proposal. Its voting threshold cannot simply be substituted for the different one in the ratified 2024 procedures. The next consequential document will identify what has been adopted and when it takes effect.

For customers, the test after that will be less about the elegance of the rules than the work they protect. Can the registry retrieve an earlier file and handle the next request? Can a remedy restore the service without exposing customer information? The Council can help define those responsibilities. It cannot fulfil all of them itself.

Correction, 22 October 2026: this article now includes the Council's published recognition role, corrects its account of the ICANN–NRO founding arrangement and adds the documented review history. It distinguishes the ratified 2024 procedures from the 2026 recommended draft. The original publication date is unchanged.