An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...

Mon Oct 27 23:01:54 UTC 2014

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<brunner at nic-naa.net> wrote:
> some history.
>
> at the montevideo icann meeting (september, 2001), there were so few
> attendees to either the ispc (now ispcp) and the bc (still bc), that these
> two meetings merged. at the paris icann meeting (june, 2008) staff presented
> an analysis of the voting patters of the gnso constituencies -- to my
> non-surprise, both the bc and the ispc votes (now ispcp) correlated very
> highly with the intellectual property constituency, and unlike that
> constituency, originated very little in the way of policy issues for which
> an eventual vote was recorded. in other words, the bc and ispc were, and for
> the most part, imho, remain captive properties of the intellectual property
> constituency.
>
> this could change, but the isps that fund suits need to change the suits
> they send, the trademark lawyer of eyeball network operator X is not the vp
> of ops of network operator X.

Unless folk here *like* having their views represented as being
aligned with intellectual property folk?

Well, do you? If not, come to an ICANN meeting and say so...

W

>
> meanwhile, whois, the udrp, and other bits o' other-people's-business-model
> take up all the available time.
>
> eric
>
>
>
> On 10/23/14 2:58 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>
>> 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