[175665] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A translation (was Re: An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Oct 27 16:59:40 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <544A9573.3000700@nic-naa.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:57:14 -0700
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams =
<brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
>>=20
>=20
> somethings get lost in translation. even the best of translations.
>=20
> 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.
Perhaps this is more indicative of the fact that the fractions of the =
business and ISP constituencies that actually care enough to devote =
resources to ICANN meetings and such are, in fact, those businesses most =
closely tied with the Intellectual Property interests as the rest of the =
world basically doesn=92t give a damn unless something goes horribly =
wrong and DNS stops doing what they expect.
> 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.
I don=92t think it is all that is meant by that term, but certainly it =
is a component.
> 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.
True. I think that as a general rule, operators are conspicuously absent =
from most ICANN proceedings.
> 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.
Which I think says more about the tedium and general lack of relevance =
of most of what ICANN does to the operational and technical =
constituencies than it says about the protocol supporting organization.
> 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.
Now there=92s a lovely thought=85 We don=92t like what few operators who =
haven=92t walked away in disgust are telling us, so, it=92s perhaps =
better to call their voices irrelevant and simply dismiss them as a =
non-relevant constituency.
Owen
