An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...

Thu Oct 23 21:58:36 UTC 2014

Those of y'all who were at NANOG62 may remember a presentation from the ICANN
Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP).

I feel somewhat bad because I misunderstood what they were sayingin,
and kinda lost my cool during the preso.  Anyway, the ISPCP met at
ICANN 51 last week. Unfortunately I was not able to attend, but the
meeting audio stream is posted at:
http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-ispcp

If you'd rather read than listen, the transcript is posted here:
http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-ispcp/transcript-ispcp-14oct14-en.pdf

I snipped a bit that mentions NANOG:

The next outreach experience that we had was at NANOG. NANOG, as you
may know, is the North American Network Operators Group, an area where
we really wanted to make an impact because it is the network operators
groups that can really bring the insight that we need to act on being a unique
and special voice within the ICANN community on issues that matter to ISPs
around some of the things that are on our agenda today, such as universal
access, such as name collisions. And we wanted to get more technical voices
in the mix and more resources in the door so that we could make a better
impact there.
A lot of what we received when we stood up to give our presentation were
messages from people who had attempted to engage in ICANN in the past or
attempted to engage in the ISPCP in the past and had had very difficult time
doing. They said when you come into this arena you spend so much time
talking about process, so much time talking about Whois and what board
seats, about what needs to happen around transparency. I'm a technical guy,
I want to focus on technical issues and I don't have a unique venue for being
able to do that.
So we spent some time as a group trying to figure out how we can address
that because we do need those voices. Our goal has been to take the
feedback that we receive from NANOG and create an action plan to make
sure that we can pull in voices like that and go back to the NOG community,
go back to the technical operators community, bring them on board and say
we've got a different path for you.

Anyway, go listen / read the full transcript if you are so inclined...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf