Re: An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...

[Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner () nic-naa net>]

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.

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