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
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
Hi, While I'm sure most of the folks on NANOG are fully aware of the myriad of acronyms and Byzantine structures in the ICANN universe (:)), I thought some translation for those not inoculated with ICANNese may be helpful: On Oct 23, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@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),
Translated: At a meeting in Uruguay in 2001 (one of the 3 times per year meetings ICANN holds all over the world in accordance with its Bylaws requirement to be a global organization and/or the desire of those who came up with the Bylaws to have many fine lunches and dinners in exotic places), very few people attended the working group meetings purportedly chartered for the interests of ISPs (the "ISP Constituency" or ISPC) and the meetings purportedly chartered for typically e-commerce related business interests (the "Business Constituency" or BC). For those interested and/or who have morbid curiosity, both of these constituencies have their own web pages: ISPCP: http://ispcp.info BC: http://www.bizconst.org The parentheticals note the ISP Constituency was renamed to the "ISP and Connectivity Provider" Constituency (ISPCP) and the Business Constituency is still named the BC. I do not know for sure what the rationale was behind the renaming (I'm guessing it was to increase the number of folks the Constituency would be relevant to).
that these two meetings merged.
You could see this either as a desire to have something like a "joint working group meeting" in IETF parlance or a desire to have a few people in a single room instead of a couple of people in two rooms to try to avoid awkwardness (in my experience, the ISPCP meetings are not particularly well attended -- this may have changed: I haven't been in a while. I can't comment on the BC meetings since I've never been.)
at the paris icann meeting (june, 2008) staff presented an analysis of the voting patters of the gnso constituencies
GNSO: Generic Names Supporting Organization, the folks who care sufficiently deeply about generic top-level domains to go to places like Montevideo and Paris for a week to scream past... err... reach consensus with other individuals who care deeply about generic top-level domains. The GNSO is made up of a bunch of Constituencies, of which the ISPCP and BC are two. There are more. There are two other Supporting Organizations, the ccNSO for country code TLDs and the ASO, the Addressing Supporting Organization, made up of folks elected by the RIRs.
-- to my non-surprise, both the bc and the ispc votes (now ispcp) correlated very highly with the intellectual property constituency,
Yet another GNSO Constituency: the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), focused on trying to protect the interests of Intellectual Property Rights owners in the areas ICANN touches. IPC: http://www.ipconstituency.org I think it safe to say that much (but not all) of the warfare that goes on at ICANN meetings is between the folks interested in protecting IPR (in this context, trademarks) and folks interested in selling oodles of domain names.
and unlike that constituency, originated very little in the way of policy issues for which an eventual vote was recorded.
I am, in fact, unaware of any policy issues originated out of the ISPCP or BC (but again, I'm not too familiar with these groups). From a purely technical policy perspective, this may be considered to be ... unfortunate. That is, many of the folk on this mailing list undoubtedly have a view on what ICANN does yet those views are not relayed in a way the ICANN community can hear.
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.
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.
Indeed, and I must commend Warren and Eric for caring enough to actually engage in this stuff. While many people in the NANOG/IETF/DNS Operations communities complain about the latest abomination ICANN is inflicting upon the world, there aren't a whole lot of folks from those communities who take the (non-trivial) amount of time to try to understand and address the situation. While I fully understand the rationales for not participating, the lack of strong representation from the technical community does not help in preventing abominations.
meanwhile, whois, the udrp, and other bits o' other-people's-business-model take up all the available time.
UDRP: The "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" (I do not know why it isn't referenced as the UDNDRP or "udden-drip"). This is the mechanism by which people who believe a domain name is being used abusively can attempt to have that abuse stopped. Folks who have been through UDRP disputes can comment on their view of its effectiveness. Examples of "other bits o' other-peope's-business-model" might include stuff like how to improve accuracy in the registration databases so anti-abuse folks can have more hope finding spammers or how culturally/liguistically-identical-but-represented-by-different-Unicode-glyphs strings can be deployed as new top-level domains (by analogy, imagine if the DNS was not case insensitive for LDH labels and the 'fun' that would occur if different organizations were allowed to sell names out of the two different TLDs, ".com" and ".COM"). Or, if you want something outside of the DNS, what ICANN should do about the RPKI "global trust anchor", i.e., whether the RPKI tree should be a singly-rooted tree originating at IANA as indicated by the IAB or a forest of 5 (or 6) trees originating at each of the RIRs (plus IANA) as the RIRs would appear to prefer at this time. If you've read this far, you might worry about your own sanity... :). Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)
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
On Oct 24, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
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.
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’t 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’t 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’s a lovely thought… We don’t like what few operators who haven’t walked away in disgust are telling us, so, it’s perhaps better to call their voices irrelevant and simply dismiss them as a non-relevant constituency. Owen
Well, that was pure gold, David. If you didn't read it and think you might have the slightest interest in what's going on with ICANN stuff: Read It. I'll mildly dispute the point about registration services (aka WHOIS). Though I've no doubt someone out there imagines improving the quality of the database would help with spam I tend to doubt it. I believe this never-ending quest for more reliable domain registration data is being driven by intellectual property lawyers to lower the cost of serving those they see as infringers either by domain or web site content. I know this both from sitting in on the IPC meetings occasionally and talking to lawyers at ICANN many of whom seem to believe that while they should be paid $300/hour for their time that everyone else should endeavor to make their job easier and less error-prone for free. I'd imagine there's something deeper going on there which I don't fully understand like they have trouble (profitably) billing clients for tracking down the target of their lawsuits and see it as an aspect of discovery they'd just as soon eliminate by shifting the burden to the registrars (and general public of course) et al. FWIW, my suggestion was to put the WHOIS data into the DNS (a new RR perhaps) under the control of whoever manages that DNS record and if someone needs more correct information then perhaps the registrars could provide it (perhaps for a fee) from the sales slips (so to speak.) It's just a sales record, not sure why some are trying to move heaven and earth to idealize the information and access to it. P.S. And of course the new WHOIS proposal involves creating classes of access to go along with improved correctness. So only bona-fide lawyers with paid-up bar dues will be able to get at the info because, you know, lawyers, esq. -b On October 23, 2014 at 19:27 drc@virtualized.org (David Conrad) wrote:
Hi,
While I'm sure most of the folks on NANOG are fully aware of the myriad of acronyms and Byzantine structures in the ICANN universe (:)), I thought some translation for those not inoculated with ICANNese may be helpful:
On Oct 23, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@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),
Translated:
At a meeting in Uruguay in 2001 (one of the 3 times per year meetings ICANN holds all over the world in accordance with its Bylaws requirement to be a global organization and/or the desire of those who came up with the Bylaws to have many fine lunches and dinners in exotic places), very few people attended the working group meetings purportedly chartered for the interests of ISPs (the "ISP Constituency" or ISPC) and the meetings purportedly chartered for typically e-commerce related business interests (the "Business Constituency" or BC).
For those interested and/or who have morbid curiosity, both of these constituencies have their own web pages:
ISPCP: http://ispcp.info BC: http://www.bizconst.org
The parentheticals note the ISP Constituency was renamed to the "ISP and Connectivity Provider" Constituency (ISPCP) and the Business Constituency is still named the BC. I do not know for sure what the rationale was behind the renaming (I'm guessing it was to increase the number of folks the Constituency would be relevant to).
that these two meetings merged.
You could see this either as a desire to have something like a "joint working group meeting" in IETF parlance or a desire to have a few people in a single room instead of a couple of people in two rooms to try to avoid awkwardness (in my experience, the ISPCP meetings are not particularly well attended -- this may have changed: I haven't been in a while. I can't comment on the BC meetings since I've never been.)
at the paris icann meeting (june, 2008) staff presented an analysis of the voting patters of the gnso constituencies
GNSO: Generic Names Supporting Organization, the folks who care sufficiently deeply about generic top-level domains to go to places like Montevideo and Paris for a week to scream past... err... reach consensus with other individuals who care deeply about generic top-level domains.
The GNSO is made up of a bunch of Constituencies, of which the ISPCP and BC are two. There are more.
There are two other Supporting Organizations, the ccNSO for country code TLDs and the ASO, the Addressing Supporting Organization, made up of folks elected by the RIRs.
-- to my non-surprise, both the bc and the ispc votes (now ispcp) correlated very highly with the intellectual property constituency,
Yet another GNSO Constituency: the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), focused on trying to protect the interests of Intellectual Property Rights owners in the areas ICANN touches.
IPC: http://www.ipconstituency.org
I think it safe to say that much (but not all) of the warfare that goes on at ICANN meetings is between the folks interested in protecting IPR (in this context, trademarks) and folks interested in selling oodles of domain names.
and unlike that constituency, originated very little in the way of policy issues for which an eventual vote was recorded.
I am, in fact, unaware of any policy issues originated out of the ISPCP or BC (but again, I'm not too familiar with these groups). From a purely technical policy perspective, this may be considered to be ... unfortunate. That is, many of the folk on this mailing list undoubtedly have a view on what ICANN does yet those views are not relayed in a way the ICANN community can hear.
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.
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.
Indeed, and I must commend Warren and Eric for caring enough to actually engage in this stuff. While many people in the NANOG/IETF/DNS Operations communities complain about the latest abomination ICANN is inflicting upon the world, there aren't a whole lot of folks from those communities who take the (non-trivial) amount of time to try to understand and address the situation. While I fully understand the rationales for not participating, the lack of strong representation from the technical community does not help in preventing abominations.
meanwhile, whois, the udrp, and other bits o' other-people's-business-model take up all the available time.
UDRP: The "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" (I do not know why it isn't referenced as the UDNDRP or "udden-drip"). This is the mechanism by which people who believe a domain name is being used abusively can attempt to have that abuse stopped. Folks who have been through UDRP disputes can comment on their view of its effectiveness.
Examples of "other bits o' other-peope's-business-model" might include stuff like how to improve accuracy in the registration databases so anti-abuse folks can have more hope finding spammers or how culturally/liguistically-identical-but-represented-by-different-Unicode-glyphs strings can be deployed as new top-level domains (by analogy, imagine if the DNS was not case insensitive for LDH labels and the 'fun' that would occur if different organizations were allowed to sell names out of the two different TLDs, ".com" and ".COM"). Or, if you want something outside of the DNS, what ICANN should do about the RPKI "global trust anchor", i.e., whether the RPKI tree should be a singly-rooted tree originating at IANA as indicated by the IAB or a forest of 5 (or 6) trees originating at each of the RIRs (plus IANA) as the RIRs would appear to prefer at this time.
If you've read this far, you might worry about your own sanity... :).
Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Barry, On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I believe this never-ending quest for more reliable domain registration data is being driven by intellectual property lawyers to lower the cost of serving those they see as infringers either by domain or web site content.
I would agree that the intellectual property folks have interests in this area, however having sat through sessions on various illegal activities facilitated by domain names (e.g., trade in endangered species, child porn, illegal pharmacies, etc) as well as having been to anti-abuse meetings (e.g., MAAWG, APWG, RIPE abuse-wt, etc), I am fairly confident there are far more people interested in accurate registration data than merely intellectual property lawyers. Heck, I heard even some network operators would like to have accurate registration databases and I don't think many of those folks are intellectual property lawyers.
FWIW, my suggestion was to put the WHOIS data into the DNS (a new RR perhaps) under the control of whoever manages that DNS record and if someone needs more correct information then perhaps the registrars could provide it (perhaps for a fee) from the sales slips (so to speak.)
You're too late: I believe there is a t-shirt that has the slogan "F* that, let's just put it in the DNS"... :)
It's just a sales record, not sure why some are trying to move heaven and earth to idealize the information and access to it.
I disagree. Perhaps my age is showing, but I believe the whole point of the registration database is to provide contact information to allow someone to contact the registrant for whatever reason, e.g., "hey, stop that!".
P.S. And of course the new WHOIS proposal involves creating classes of access to go along with improved correctness.
That is one part of the outcome of ICANN's ongoing effort to try to fix the multiple decade long nightmare that is Whois, yes.
So only bona-fide lawyers with paid-up bar dues will be able to get at the info because, you know, lawyers, esq.
I'm not sure such a wild mischaracterization of the _166 page_ proposal for "A Next Generation Registration Directory Service" is actually helpful. The whole question of registration data is extremely complicated with a vast array of mutually contradictory requirements. As I understand it, the tiered access proposal was largely driven by the requirement to deal with the differing privacy requirements/laws/customs/etc. across the planet (e.g., the EU data privacy directives). As with anything that suggests non-trivial change, there is much that is controversial in the proposal, however I suspect it would be more useful if the controversy was based in actual reality instead of snark. For anyone actually interested, the actual proposal is at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf (and to be clear, it is a proposal -- people are currently discussing what to do with it) Regards, -drc
In message <5526169E-D263-4132-A809-0B0A6FCE842F@virtualized.org>, David Conrad writes:
Barry,
On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I believe this never-ending quest for more reliable domain registration data is being driven by intellectual property lawyers to lower the cost of serving those they see as infringers either by domain or web site content.
I would agree that the intellectual property folks have interests in this area, however having sat through sessions on various illegal activities facilitated by domain names (e.g., trade in endangered species, child porn, illegal pharmacies, etc) as well as having been to anti-abuse meetings (e.g., MAAWG, APWG, RIPE abuse-wt, etc), I am fairly confident there are far more people interested in accurate registration data than merely intellectual property lawyers.
Heck, I heard even some network operators would like to have accurate registration databases and I don't think many of those folks are intellectual property lawyers.
FWIW, my suggestion was to put the WHOIS data into the DNS (a new RR perhaps) under the control of whoever manages that DNS record and if someone needs more correct information then perhaps the registrars could provide it (perhaps for a fee) from the sales slips (so to speak.)
You're too late: I believe there is a t-shirt that has the slogan "F* that, let's just put it in the DNS"... :)
It's just a sales record, not sure why some are trying to move heaven and earth to idealize the information and access to it.
I disagree. Perhaps my age is showing, but I believe the whole point of the registration database is to provide contact information to allow someone to contact the registrant for whatever reason, e.g., "hey, stop that!".
Personally I would like to be able to contact the zone owners so I can report problems with their servers. The amount of broken servers and firewalls is enourmous and it is causing operational problems. It is also fixable if you can contact the zone's administrators. http://users.isc.org/~marka/ts.html
P.S. And of course the new WHOIS proposal involves creating classes of access to go along with improved correctness.
That is one part of the outcome of ICANN's ongoing effort to try to fix the multiple decade long nightmare that is Whois, yes.
So only bona-fide lawyers with paid-up bar dues will be able to get at the info because, you know, lawyers, esq.
I'm not sure such a wild mischaracterization of the _166 page_ proposal for "A Next Generation Registration Directory Service" is actually helpful. The whole question of registration data is extremely complicated with a vast array of mutually contradictory requirements. As I understand it, the tiered access proposal was largely driven by the requirement to deal with the differing privacy requirements/laws/customs/etc. across the planet (e.g., the EU data privacy directives). As with anything that suggests non-trivial change, there is much that is controversial in the proposal, however I suspect it would be more useful if the controversy was based in actual reality instead of snark.
For anyone actually interested, the actual proposal is at
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf
(and to be clear, it is a proposal -- people are currently discussing what to do with it)
Regards, -drc
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On October 24, 2014 at 19:34 drc@virtualized.org (David Conrad) wrote:
Barry,
On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I believe this never-ending quest for more reliable domain registration data is being driven by intellectual property lawyers to lower the cost of serving those they see as infringers either by domain or web site content.
I would agree that the intellectual property folks have interests in this area, however having sat through sessions on various illegal activities facilitated by domain names (e.g., trade in endangered species, child porn, illegal pharmacies, etc) as well as having been to anti-abuse meetings (e.g., MAAWG, APWG, RIPE abuse-wt, etc), I am fairly confident there are far more people interested in accurate registration data than merely intellectual property lawyers.
Oh no! The Four Horsement of the Infocalypse! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse Sure, "agree with me or you're a child porn enabler!" I just tend to doubt this effort will help much. It's just selling some idealized vision of domain registration data. At any rate, I'm not against better data, my concern is more in the realm of: At what cost? Who has access? Who specifically bears the cost of all this goodness? I think I mentioned this but in LA I was in a near shouting match with an IP lawyer whose specialty was brands protection who couldn't understand why service providers were so difficult to deal with when asked for customer info, take downs, whatever they wanted. I said hey, you're being paid like $300/hour to deal with this, you're offering me zero. You imagine this is just your little request but it's not, it's a time sinkhole as you chase words that rhyme with your client's brand or other potential business. One of the more sordid aspects of the law is that one can enact more and more stringent and time-consuming reporting etc rules and at some point it's just a free ride. Suddenly the law REQUIRES service providers to expend whatever effort it takes to provide accurate and timely discovery information. Meanwhile Verizon and other big telcos are getting like $500 per for taps etc, to the tune of tens of millions per month? http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/09/23/attverizonsprint-are-pa... or http://tinyurl.com/q74oa7u I'm not against the concept, but it needs balance and it's reasonable to advocate. That doesn't make someone a child-porn enabler. Goodness costs money.
Heck, I heard even some network operators would like to have accurate registration databases and I don't think many of those folks are intellectual property lawyers.
FWIW, my suggestion was to put the WHOIS data into the DNS (a new RR perhaps) under the control of whoever manages that DNS record and if someone needs more correct information then perhaps the registrars could provide it (perhaps for a fee) from the sales slips (so to speak.)
You're too late: I believe there is a t-shirt that has the slogan "F* that, let's just put it in the DNS"... :)
I suppose that's better than "I've never heard anyone suggest this but you!", so I'll take it!
It's just a sales record, not sure why some are trying to move heaven and earth to idealize the information and access to it.
I disagree. Perhaps my age is showing, but I believe the whole point of the registration database is to provide contact information to allow someone to contact the registrant for whatever reason, e.g., "hey, stop that!".
It's the old problem, crooks don't hand out business cards. And, again, at what cost, and to whom?
P.S. And of course the new WHOIS proposal involves creating classes of access to go along with improved correctness.
That is one part of the outcome of ICANN's ongoing effort to try to fix the multiple decade long nightmare that is Whois, yes.
It needs a public examination. This is a big change. It's reasonable to be suspicious that it will be turned into a privileged and expensive resource.
So only bona-fide lawyers with paid-up bar dues will be able to get at the info because, you know, lawyers, esq.
I'm not sure such a wild mischaracterization of the _166 page_ proposal for "A Next Generation Registration Directory Service" is actually helpful. The whole question of registration data is extremely complicated with a vast array of mutually contradictory requirements. As I understand it, the tiered access proposal was largely driven by the requirement to deal with the differing privacy requirements/laws/customs/etc. across the planet (e.g., the EU data privacy directives). As with anything that suggests non-trivial change, there is much that is controversial in the proposal, however I suspect it would be more useful if the controversy was based in actual reality instead of snark.
I read the recent 95 page version, and the previous 66 page (sixty-something) proposal. And I will go read the latest. But I don't think my characterization is mere snark. It also strikes me as having a lot of technical problems, policy wish-lists posing as technology. I think the effort needs to be joint with an IETF working group, a lot of the issues are beyond the capabilities of the ICANN group, that's clear from reading what I've read.
For anyone actually interested, the actual proposal is at
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf
(and to be clear, it is a proposal -- people are currently discussing what to do with it)
Or snarking.
Regards, -drc
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Barry Shein wrote:
I disagree. Perhaps my age is showing, but I believe the whole point of the registration database is to provide contact information to allow someone to contact the registrant for whatever reason, e.g., "hey, stop that!". It's the old problem, crooks don't hand out business cards. And, again, at what cost, and to whom?
If you can't be bothered to have correct contact info, your packets go into the scavenger queue. Or get redirected to a webpage explaining why your network is blocked until you correct it. Your customers will be the ones complaining to you. -Dan
On October 27, 2014 at 10:12 goemon@anime.net (goemon@anime.net) wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Barry Shein wrote:
I disagree. Perhaps my age is showing, but I believe the whole point of the registration database is to provide contact information to allow someone to contact the registrant for whatever reason, e.g., "hey, stop that!". It's the old problem, crooks don't hand out business cards. And, again, at what cost, and to whom?
If you can't be bothered to have correct contact info, your packets go into the scavenger queue. Or get redirected to a webpage explaining why your network is blocked until you correct it.
Your customers will be the ones complaining to you.
When all you have is a hammer the entire world looks like a nail! Typical estimates are that around 30-40% of WHOIS data is useless (for what purpose tho?) ranging from out of date (they don't live there any more, etc) to terribly incomplete, to probably fraudulent (Daffy Duck owns many domains, so does Frodo Baggins.) So long as the bill gets paid, or was paid 10 years forward, etc., it tends to not get reviewed. So is your proposal to block 30-40% of all domains? Whose customers will be complaining? But this isn't about that. As I said in a previous note I have no problem with better data as a concept. Few disagree with that, the devil is in the details. The issues are at what cost, at whose cost, who gets access to the data (that's changing, get ready for "NOT AUTHORIZED" as a response to a WHOIS query), what is good data (is listing an agency whose purpose is to exist but not reveal your identity good enough? There are many of those, it's become a big business), where should it be stored, who has custodial responsibility, privacy responsibility, how can that be enforced (contract, most likely, but how are contracts enforced in countries whose name you can't pronounce correctly), it's even much more complicated than that (cctlds who don't even recognize a contracting authority), etc. etc. etc. Oh and let's not get started on things like the EU's data privacy requirements. Well, actually, we have to. You're welcome to join the fray, but leave the hammer at home. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On 10/27/14 10:12 AM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
If you can't be bothered to have correct contact info, your packets go into the scavenger queue. Or get redirected to a webpage explaining why your network is blocked until you correct it.
Your customers will be the ones complaining to you.
the (icann accredited) registrar which accepted {bogus|non-verified|accurate} registrant data at some point in time less than 10 years ago which is now {bogus|non-verified|accurate|aged-out} is likely to be providing dns for the domain in question, or the dns is likely to be provided by the registrant, so the "packets [DO NOT] go into the scavenger queue." NOR are they "redirected ..." it helps to recognize that there is a problem, and the absence of subject matter expertise contributes to the problem. trans: you are part of the problem. -e
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
If you can't be bothered to have correct contact info, your packets go into the scavenger queue. Or get redirected to a webpage explaining why your network is blocked until you correct it.
Your customers will be the ones complaining to you.
On 10/27/14 10:12 AM, goemon@anime.net wrote: the (icann accredited) registrar which accepted {bogus|non-verified|accurate} registrant data at some point in time less than 10 years ago which is now {bogus|non-verified|accurate|aged-out} is likely to be providing dns for the domain in question, or the dns is likely to be provided by the registrant, so the "packets [DO NOT] go into the scavenger queue." NOR are they "redirected ..."
I should clarify I was thinking about whois on the IP blocks and/or ASN. not dns for domain names. if your network is spewing sewage, there should be some way to contact you. if you are uninterested in being contacted, there's always RBLs I guess. -Dan
On 10/27/14 1:32 PM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
[snip] I should clarify I was thinking about whois on the IP blocks and/or ASN. not dns for domain names.
if your network is spewing sewage, there should be some way to contact you. if you are uninterested in being contacted, there's always RBLs I guess.
As both David and Barry have observed, the interest in useful "authorship" information (origin, authority, etc) for name-to-resource associations need not be limited to third-parties engaged in prosecution of trademarks infringement or criminal laws. Thank you for your patience in this thread, and for the suggestion of the interest of first-parties. Eric
Barry, On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Oh no! The Four Horsement of the Infocalypse!
Being dismissive of concerns related to illegal activities that make use of the DNS does not, of course, make those concerns go away. A number of folks make use of the registration database in attempting to address illegal activities, as such it seems to me that it would be useful if that database was accurate.
It's the old problem,
Not really.
crooks don't hand out business cards.
Registration data is used to identify registrants, not crooks. As Mark Andrews pointed out, there are uses for identifying non-crook registrants. In rare cases, registrants are crooks and while I'd agree the sophisticated crooks will find ways around any requirements for accuracy, I believe there is value to having accuracy in the general case. Or are you arguing we should simply remove Whois as a service available to the Internet?
And, again, at what cost, and to whom?
The cost obviously depends on the requirements and implementation. The whom is and will always be the registrant. However, for the vast majority of registrants with a handful of domains, the costs are likely to be in the pennies. Granted, for the domainers with huge portfolios, the costs may be significant, however that is a cost of doing that particular business.
That is one part of the outcome of ICANN's ongoing effort to try to fix the multiple decade long nightmare that is Whois, yes. It needs a public examination. This is a big change.
Agreed! And, in particular, it would be nice if network operators, who I believe make non-trivial use of Whois examine that change and determine whether the changes meet their requirements and if not, dare I say, participate in ICANN to make sure it does. Regards, -drc
On October 27, 2014 at 15:34 drc@virtualized.org (David Conrad) wrote:
Barry,
On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Oh no! The Four Horsement of the Infocalypse!
Being dismissive of concerns related to illegal activities that make use of the DNS does not, of course, make those concerns go away. A number of folks make use of the registration database in attempting to address illegal activities, as such it seems to me that it would be useful if that database was accurate.
Leading with "child porn" etc as a first-mentioned motivation strikes me as an attempt to snatch the moral high ground rather than discuss the issues -- oh and if you disagree with me you must be ok with child porn. I've chased child pornographers with LEO. By and large they are very, very careful about their identities. You're not going to just do a WHOIS query and jot down their address and phone number and pay them a visit. At any rate, we can all drive at 20MPH max and think of how many thousands of lives that would save every year...etc. Disagree? Do you want people to die?!? And so forth. That there's an intent or possibility to improve criminal investigations doesn't necessarily justify the means. And I still believe a lot of the energy behind the WHOIS rewrite has come from the intellectual property crowd (to reduce the cost of discovery) tho yes law enforcement loves better identity sources particularly if it's on someone else's budget.
It's the old problem,
Not really.
crooks don't hand out business cards.
Registration data is used to identify registrants, not crooks. As Mark Andrews pointed out, there are uses for identifying non-crook registrants. In rare cases, registrants are crooks and while I'd agree the sophisticated crooks will find ways around any requirements for accuracy, I believe there is value to having accuracy in the general case.
You're still just repeating potential motivations rather than telling us how these changes will accomplish those goals, and at what cost. How is any of that being accomplished by limiting access to the WHOIS data?
From page 21 of the Final Report:
"...the EWG recommends abandoning today's WHOIS model -- giving every user the same anonymous public access to (too often inaccurate) gTLD registration data. Instead, the EWG recommends a paradigm shift whereby gTLD registration data is collected, validated and disclosed for permissible purposes only, with some data elements being accessible only to authenticated requestors that are then held accountable for appropriate use." (me: EWG = Expert Working Group) Ok, admittedly there's a lot more to the report than we're discussing here and the only fair way to review it is to read it which I recommend, again that URL: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/kdjdu7c Don't get me wrong, I consider it by and large well-intentioned. But that doesn't mean we can't disagree on some recommendations.
Or are you arguing we should simply remove Whois as a service available to the Internet?
And, again, at what cost, and to whom?
The cost obviously depends on the requirements and implementation.
The whom is and will always be the registrant. However, for the vast majority of registrants with a handful of domains, the costs are likely to be in the pennies. Granted, for the domainers with huge portfolios, the costs may be significant, however that is a cost of doing that particular business.
What about charging those with need for access to the data? Once we've limited access to "authenticated requestors" why not charge a fee for that authenticated access? That was part of my suggestion to put the public data in the DNS. Public data accessed via the DNS is free (for some value of free, but not usage charged.) And it has roughly the accuracy and precision we experience today. For more accurate data you can pay for a record request. Up to and including presenting a court order though I would hope that's not the common case.
That is one part of the outcome of ICANN's ongoing effort to try to fix the multiple decade long nightmare that is Whois, yes.
I don't see it as a "nightmare". It very much reflects the spirit of the internet. Much of it is free and voluntary and worth more than you paid for it. It's only when some imagine some specific, valuable use that they might become frustrated. Shall we try to clean up google (et al) result accuracy also?
It needs a public examination. This is a big change.
Agreed! And, in particular, it would be nice if network operators, who I believe make non-trivial use of Whois examine that change and determine whether the changes meet their requirements and if not, dare I say, participate in ICANN to make sure it does.
I don't think we're very far apart. We just have slightly different value weightings on some points.
Regards, -drc
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Whois's primary purpose is to keep the network running. CP, IP, LEO are all secondary issues. This tends to get lost. I can easily contact all the TLD operators using whois data and do so from time to time when I see issues with the servers. The one time I couldn't (both email addresses bounced) was reported to IANA who are working on getting the contact details corrected. Whois data for other zones is a real pain in the back side to get let alone process. .GOV just tells you if the zone exists. This is a !@#$!@#@$# joke. They are government departments. They should be contactable without having to depend upon web sites being up as sometimes you are complaining about the sites being down. For those of you who are US citizens please complain to your representatives about this. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 03:13:48PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
Though I've no doubt someone out there imagines improving the quality of the database would help with spam I tend to doubt it.
It might. So would removing the farce of 'private' domain registration. What would also help is removing the antiquated and byzantine boilerplate adhesions that result when one queries WHOIS data. And finally, what would help is dumping daily snapshots of all WHOIS data so that it's possible to just grab the entire thing in one compressed (text? XML?) file with a single rsync/wget -- with the minor caveat that such snapshots will always lag behind actual data. (Some folks will claim that this will result in increased spam to domain owners. This is false. First, the spammers already have all those addresses and are busy selling them to each other and using them when they see fit. Second, domain registrations are not a particularly rich source of addresses, as the subset of email addresses which are mentioned in them is small compared to the set of all email addresses.) ---rsk
On 10/25/14 5:00 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
It might. So would removing the farce of 'private' domain registration.
the venue where the applicable policy is currently under development is gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org just to be tediously instructive, the policy applicable to gtlds is developed _only_ in the gnso, no where else, _only_ through the gnso's pdp, and no other process, and _only_ through a gnso chartered working group, and by no others. here, the catchy name is ppsai, an acronym for privacy & proxy services accreditation issues. so, if one sought to end proxy registration, one would subscribe to that mailing list and one would read the registration accreditation agreements (2013 and prior) and the wiki page, working documents, and even some of the mailing list archive, and then make the case -- as a gnso constituency member, e.g., ispcp -- that proxy registration creates externalities (costs to parties other than the registrants and registrars), and persuade (over time) sufficiently others in the working group, either of the correctness of your case, or the impossibility of the working group achieving "consensus" (as defined in the gnso pdp) on a report, intermediate or final, that is silent on the issue of unmet externalities. keep in mind, no amount of posturing by the aso fixtures or the passing ietf tourists or the pious at-large or concerned governments can be guaranteed to effect the gnso's consensus policies, or the process by which the gnso arrives at consensus policy. there have been 11 mails on the list this morning alone, as we try and distinguish between definition(s) of abuse in the terminal label (the "domain name") and of abuse in the resources mapped to the sequence of labels terminated by dot (the "fqdn"), and the duty, or lack of duty, of the registrar of record. the archives average about 100KB/month when gzip'd. there's my over-coffee tutorial on the subject. i've no longer a material interest in the subject matter, as i'm no longer responsible for an asn or an address allocation for an isp, nor for a registry, or a registrar, or a reseller. oh, least i forget, article 29 (european data protection directive, that is, privacy as a right arising from the treaty of europe) vs privacy arising from contract alone, e.g., between icann contracted parties. fun for everyone, and the betweenies, the oedc jurisdictions. eric
David wrote:
Indeed, and I must commend Warren and Eric for caring enough to actually engage in this stuff. While many people in the NANOG/IETF/DNS Operations communities complain about the latest abomination ICANN is inflicting upon the world, there aren't a whole lot of folks from those communities who take the (non-trivial) amount of time to try to understand and address the situation. While I fully understand the rationales for not participating, the lack of strong representation from the technical community does not help in preventing abominations.
The number of technically capable with multi-meeting attendance records is wicked limited, and most are silo'd off -- into SSAC or TAC or ASO or ... or attending annual co-gigs like OARC, and so, with the exception of those working for registries, rarely involved in actual policy development where it actually happens -- at the GNSO Council -- as all policy relating to generic top-level domains originates in the GNSO, via a or the (by abuse of notation) Policy Development Process (PDP). So if there is a point to a ISPCP stakeholders group (formerly the ISP Constituency), it is to have votes in the GNSO Council and so be capable of (a) originating a policy activity (a PDP), and (b) being eligible to chair the resulting working group, and (c) being eligible to vote on the recommendation(s) of the working group. Otherwise it is ornamental, a reflection of one of the several errors of judgement of the Roberts/Dyson/Touton team back when "multi-stakeholder(ism)" was being made up as an alternative to the contractor-agency binary relationship. It takes years to get things done, and things happen, even on Constituency Day, as Warren noted, so this isn't a send-one-staffer-and-expect-goodness kind of investment. The competent teams are three or more, and work years of meetings to achieve their policy ends.
I think it safe to say that much (but not all) of the warfare that goes on at ICANN meetings is between the folks interested in protecting IPR (in this context, trademarks) and folks interested in selling oodles of domain names.
Generally true. Counter-examples: Sitefinder, FastFlux, ... There are other axis of evils, somewhat orthogonal to the infringement vs volume conflict of interests, but absent what I think of as "operators" (of oodles of wire or piles of cooling kit), all issues that involve name-to-resource mappings where ICANN policy, not national law, is dispositive, are and will continue to be determined by one or the other of the infringement vs volume parties. Eric
I think one missing or weak component are those who actually make this stuff work vs the pie-in-the-sky infringer/volume/policy crowd. I've sat in IPC meetings and suffice it to say there isn't much clue on that front and why should there be unless the go-fast/go-always crowd shows up? Sure it does tend to creep in as proposed policies escape and get the attention of the doers but the danger is by that time the infringer/volume crowd might be quite committed to their vision: Make PI=3.0 and full steam ahead. What's also often lacking is simply administrative and management insight but that's not particularly germaine to this group. But I did get into a minor shouting match with an IP lawyer last week in LA who just didn't understand why service providers won't drop everything we're doing to rush through their discovery needs, for free, without indemnification (or similar), or jurisdicational authority, on an as-needed basis. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On 10/26/14 9:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
I think one missing or weak component are those who actually make this stuff work vs the pie-in-the-sky infringer/volume/policy crowd.
I've sat in IPC meetings and suffice it to say there isn't much clue on that front and why should there be unless the go-fast/go-always crowd shows up?
they're trademark lawyers. they'll know about pokey, but not much else, and they may not be able to articulate why infringement as a risk exists at the first and second levels, but not so much further down the tree.
Sure it does tend to creep in as proposed policies escape and get the attention of the doers but the danger is by that time the infringer/volume crowd might be quite committed to their vision: Make PI=3.0 and full steam ahead.
as i mentioned, policy originates in the gnso. by the time it is "available" for those not having a vote in the gnso council the policy is generally baked in, so pi is three.
What's also often lacking is simply administrative and management insight but that's not particularly germaine to this group.
icann's administration and mangement of constituencies is "light", and those playing the long game (generally those lobbyists with clients and more than 20 meetings of time-on-target) know that process, budget and agenda control is where the game is won or lost. as for getting operational clue, other than that of the registries, to where pi is defined as an integer, well, that simply revisits david's point that the ops people are broadly a no-show, and most that do show bath ritually when outside of their silos.
But I did get into a minor shouting match with an IP lawyer last week in LA who just didn't understand why service providers won't drop everything we're doing to rush through their discovery needs, for free, without indemnification (or similar), or jurisdicational authority, on an as-needed basis.
who? i may know him or her -- i had to work with the ipc to protect tribal names -- over the objections of milton meuller and robin gross and so on who think tribes are evil trademark holders -- and shouting may not be the only means of communicating effectively. -e
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@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
participants (8)
-
Barry Shein -
David Conrad -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
goemon＠anime.net -
Mark Andrews -
Owen DeLong -
Rich Kulawiec -
Warren Kumari