Portability of internet number resources: Why ICP-2 revision must guarantee mobility

Portability of internet number resources: Why ICP-2 revision must guarantee mobility is profiled by BTW Media because published evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• Lu Heng asserts that number resource portability must be mandatory in the ICP-2 policy to reduce systemic risk and enhance autonomy.
• Mandatory portability would incentivise accountability among registries and protect networks from governance failures.

“The revision of ICP-2 presents an opportunity to fix a structural weakness in Internet governance: the lack of guaranteed portability of number resources. Portability means that a network must have the unconditional right to move its IP addresses or ASNs from one Regional Internet Registry to another. This should not be optional, conditional, or discretionary; it must be a hard requirement embedded in ICP-2.” ——Lu Heng, CEO at Cloud Innovation, CEO at LARUS Ltd, Founder of LARUS Foundation.

The Case for portability in ICP-2 revision

In his 17 September 2025 essay “On Portability of Number Resources and the ICP-2 Revision”, Lu Heng, CEO of LARUS Limited and founder of the LARUS Foundation, outlines why the forthcoming update to the ICP-2 document must include a clear, enforceable right to portability for Internet number resources. ICP-2 is a key governance document within the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system, setting principles for how number resources such as IPv4, IPv6 and autonomous system numbers (ASNs) are managed.

Currently, networks are often tied to the RIR where they initially registered their resources. Heng argues that this creates systemic risk: when a registry experiences failure, governance issues or operational breakdowns, its members can lack any practical way to relocate their number resources to another RIR. This lock-in undermines autonomy and resilience, potentially harming the stability of critical Internet infrastructure.

Also Read: Calls grow for a clean break in APNIC governance

Autonomy and accountability through mandatory portability

For Heng, true autonomy means that organisations holding number resources should be able to transfer those resources without undue restrictions. Making portability a mandatory requirement within the ICP-2 revision would act as a safety valve: in the event of governance failure, networks would have an immediate, enforceable fallback mechanism.

Beyond resilience, mandatory portability would also drive accountability among RIRs. If members can relocate their resources, registries would face stronger market and governance incentives to maintain high service quality and neutrality. Heng emphasises that this proposal is not a call for complexity but a necessary structural improvement.

Also Read: Why centralised alternatives fail: The case for a decentralised internet registry

Aligning governance with internet’s decentralised nature

Heng’s position reflects broader debates within the global Internet community about how to align Internet governance policies with the decentralised and interoperable nature of the Internet itself. RIPE Network Coordination Center By embedding portability as a non-negotiable right in the ICP-2 document, the policy framework would better support network autonomy, reduce institutional risk, and encourage more robust governance practices.

Mandatory portability, Heng concludes, is a relatively small change in policy scope but one with far-reaching implications for how Internet number resources are governed in the decades ahead.