A translation (was Re: An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...)

Eric Brunner-Williams brunner at nic-naa.net
Fri Oct 24 18:07:47 UTC 2014


On 10/23/14 7:27 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> >in other words, the bc and ispc were, and for the most part, imho, remain captive properties of the intellectual property constituency.
> Here, Eric is suggesting the intellectual property folks are driving policy issues on behalf of the folks interested in security/stability of e-commerce and as well as ISPs and connectivity providers. I have no reason to doubt Eric's opinion as I've not been involved enough in that part of ICANN and he has.
>

somethings get lost in translation. even the best of translations.

i suggest that the agenda of the intellectual property constituency is 
the agenda of business and internet service provider constituencies, as 
measured (in 2008) by staff summary of policy initiatives and votes on 
policy by the constituencies of the gnso, due to the very high 
correlations of the constituency votes of record, but it could all be 
mere, though persistent, coincidence.

a nuance is whether the accuracy of whois data (a problem dave crocker 
and i and others tried to fix at the los angeles icann meeting in 
november 2001, and which, as hordes of the undead, lives on and on and 
on) is what is generally meant by "security and stability", or if the 
value of accuracy of whois data has significant value to parties other 
than the intellectual property constituency.

were the oarc meeting not held, by mere coincidence of course, in a 
particular hotel in los angeles last week, fewer people with operational 
roles might have been present.

the protocol supporting organization tired of having a voting 
responsibility on the icann board and got the bylaws changed in 2003 to 
eliminate itself as a supporting organization holding voting seats on 
the icann board and created a technical advisory body tasked to 
periodically provide non-voting persons to offer technical advice to the 
icann board.

i suppose a choice that addresses the problem warren noted is to ask if 
there is a continued need for operators-or-whatever-as-a-voting-body 
within the gnso. as much as i participated in the gnso reform program 
(which may have simply improved some of the ornamental decoration and 
changed some names from "constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" without 
changing the balance of forces david noted -- trademark protection vs 
volume sales -- and would prefer to see the ispcp develop a broader 
agenda than mere marks protection), taking a step back i'm no longer 
convinced that operational issues, and therefore operators, have any 
place, usefully, in the generic domain name supporting organization.

eric



More information about the NANOG mailing list