Old rules, new world: ICP-2 criteria for new RIR

Old rules, new world: ICP-2 criteria for new RIR is profiled by BTW Media because published evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• ICANN’s ICP-2 policy enforces ten strict requirements for any new Regional Internet Registry
• Concerns remain about whether these criteria adapt well to emerging regions and evolving internet models

ICANN’s criteria for new RIRs

In a document titled ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) outlines ten foundational requirements that any aspiring Regional Internet Registry (RIR) must meet in order to gain official recognition.

First adopted by the ICANN Board in 2001 following consultation with the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO), the policy sets out extensive standards covering geographical scope, community support, governance structure, neutrality, technical capability, and funding.

Among the key principles: a new RIR must cover a region of roughly continental size; demonstrate broad support from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Local Internet Registries (LIRs); have transparent policy-making processes; and show readiness for long-term financial independence. It must also adhere to globally accepted principles for IP address conservation and aggregation, and maintain English-language records to ensure audibility across the global registry system.The framework was developed jointly by RIPE NCC, ARIN, and APNIC — the original RIRs — and was intended to support fair, decentralised IP resource management.

Also read: RIPE 90 closes with calls for ICP-2 update improvements and number portability
Also read: LACNIC proposes update to ICP-2 principles for RIR governance

Why it’s important

RIRs are critical to the internet’s infrastructure, ensuring IP addresses are allocated fairly and efficiently. With only five RIRs currently managing global resources, new entrants could address regional disparities, as seen with the recognition of LACNIC in 2002 and AFRINIC in 2005. However, the stringent criteria raise questions about accessibility for under-resourced regions. Can smaller economies meet the technical and financial demands, or will these rules entrench existing power imbalances? The proposed derecognition process also sparks debate: while it aims to ensure accountability, could it destabilise regions reliant on a single RIR?

As the internet evolves, balancing global standards with regional autonomy remains contentious. Critics argue ICANN’s framework may prioritise established players, potentially stifling innovation in emerging markets. The ongoing consultation, including a session at ICANN81, will shape these policies, but their long-term impact on digital equity remains uncertain.