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
