What I am missing is why he needs the name of MICE behind him?
Reid
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Justin Krejci <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I agree with your sentiments and stated efforts wholeheartedly, I only
> disagree with classifying MICE as a representative of ISPs, be they member
> ISPs or the ISP community in general. MICE is its own entity that serves
> ISPs and non-ISPs alike. MICE also is not an ISP and also does not rely on
> DNS for it to function. MICE also does not represent ISPs, it services ISPs
> but it very likely does (or could) service organizations as well that
> "simply want to sell more domains," as you put it.
>
> Of course I do not speak for all of MICE by any means, I am just merely
> trying to be pragmatic and ask questions to better understand the situation
> and request. I just don't know if using the name of MICE as a form of
> representing ISPs (which seems to be your position) is appropriate. What if
> members of MICE hold strongly opposing views to what Mark McFadden will
> fight for? This is why I feel it would be appropriate to have something
> more formally approved.
>
> Again, I personally feel that a proper and stable DNS is significantly
> important to the well functioning of the Internet as a whole which and as
> such I feel your efforts and request in this regard are not wasted and are
> not inappropriate; I am mostly just playing devils advocate here.
>
> From what I have read about Mark, I would give him a thumbs up in his
> efforts at ICANN.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* MICE Discuss [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Mike
> O'Connor [[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:23 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine
> wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?
>
> hi Justin,
>
> i'll go with the will of the group on the degree to which we formalize
> Mark's role. however there's an ICANN Policy Forum coming up at the end of
> this month (June 26-29) in Johannesburg and i bet that Mark would
> appreciate some sort of indication of intent/willingness before the start
> of that meeting. at least some statement of intent with formal approval to
> follow, or something. what about this -- could i roll back to Mark with an
> informal "provisionally yes, final decision to follow" sentiment of the
> group?
>
> i'll gently disagree with your point about DNS and numbering. we don't
> represent them, true enough. but we certainly rely on them, and i would
> propose that we rely on them in a unique way. for example of how DNS
> policy relates to ISPs -- there used to be about 10 gTLDs in the root, now
> there are over 1000. just check out a CPANEL nightly CRON job for a list.
> some of them work great, some not so much. when they don't work so well,
> typically ISPs get the first (complex) support call. there was a lively
> debate about the impact of badly-managed expansion of the root zone a few
> years ago and some significant stability changes to the policy were
> injected because of ISP-constituency positions.
>
> another angle -- what if the DNS fell down and couldn't get up again?
> again, ISP representatives at ICANN are strong voices in support of SSR
> because of how much we rely on DNS. so no, we don't represent DNS. but
> we sure need it to work right. i think we need strong representation to
> counterbalance the organizations that simply want to sell more domains.
>
> thanks,
>
> mike
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Justin Krejci <[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Yeah, the explanation makes sense. Thanks for enumerating that out.
>
> I feel like whether or not Mark would be a good fit, I don't think an
> informal poll on the list is sufficient for MICE. I would think either the
> board would need to decide or else an approved motion at a UG meeting would
> be the appropriate way to designate someone for this role/representation.
> If we are going to have these kinds of liason/representative roles, it
> should probably be formalized, at least a little bit like by having it
> noted on the website or something.
>
> The few respondents so far seem pretty positive towards approving this
> request but I can quite honestly say I don't know anything about Mark aside
> from the snippet below and a few things I've read online:
>
> Quick excerpt:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mcfadden-to-roseman-2003-11-11-en
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/05/12/dnsop/minutes/minutes-
> interim-2015-dnsop-1
>
>
> He seems like a rather pragmatic person, which I find very appropriate,
> especially in someone working on policy.
>
> I still find it a bit of a stretch to say that MICE represents DNS or
> numbering in any meaningful way. MICE is made up of various members, some
> of whom are ISPs and DNS operators but DNS is not the mission or focus of
> MICE in any way. I would call it tangential at best.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* MICE Discuss [[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [
> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine
> wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?
>
> hi Justin,
>
> no worries.
>
> ICANN has a constituency that represents the interests of ISPs when it
> makes policy about the operation of the DNS. i represented MICE in the ISP
> Constituency from 2012 until last year when i finally retired from all
> things Internet. MICE has a stake in the DNS because we, and our ISP
> members, are the front-line responders if/when the DNS goes wrong. it's
> important for ISPs to speak up in favor of security, stability and
> resiliency of the DNS in policy discussions.
>
> Mark's relationship with MICE would probably be a lot like mine --
> interested supporter of the MICE mission. the way folks like Mark and me
> can help is by being a strong voice for the SSR issues that all ISPs face,
> including MICE and its member ISPs. knowing Mark as i do, i know that he
> would get to know MICE, would be happy to brief us on what's going on at
> ICANN, bring policy issues to us for comment and subsequently represent
> those views in policy discussions. having Mark in this role is like having
> a world-expert consultant as our representative in these policy discussions
> -- for free.
>
> make sense?
>
> mike
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Justin Krejci <[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> No sleight against him in any way is intended but I would question his
> relationship to MICE; what is the reason he specifically would be
> representing our organization? Is he a member? What kinds of things were
> done in the past and what kinds of things would be expected in the future
> in terms of "representing MICE at ICANN" as I don't see much overlap of
> ICANN and MICE. What sort of weight or authority does this "volunteer to
> represent MICE at ICANN" really provide? Is he familiar with MICE and
> understand what our best interests are as an organization?
>
> I am just confused by this whole request.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* MICE Discuss [[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [
> [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine
> wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?
>
> Works for me as well.
>
> FWIW, if people would like, I can back Mark up to some extent as I am now
> attending ICANN meetings representing Akamai as a registrar.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 11:55 , Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> You have my vote
>
>
>
> Jeremy Lumby
> Minnesota VoIP
> 9217 17th Ave S
> Suite 216
> Bloomington MN 55425
> Main 612-355-7740 <(612)%20355-7740>
> Direct 612-392-6814 <(612)%20392-6814>
> EFax 952-873-7425 <(952)%20873-7425>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Mike O'Connor <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if
> he could represent us at ICANN?
>
> ------------------------------
> From : Mike O'Connor [[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>]
> To : [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> [
> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>]
> Date : Wednesday, June 14 2017 13:46:01
> hi all,
>
> Mark McFadden inquired as to whether he could take on the volunteer
> "represent MICE at ICANN" role that i used to fill. if that decision were
> left entirely to me i would say "absolutely" as Mark is one of the folks i
> held in highest regard while i was a participant at ICANN. i'm putting
> this request to you in much the same way that i did when i asked whether i
> could represent us, back in 2012. this would be a volunteer arrangement in
> which Mark would stand ready to provide briefings and insights as MICE
> requests - in return for which he would have standing within ICANN to
> continue his very long involvement in that organization.
>
> i did a search on "Mark McFadden ICANN" which turned up all kinds of
> stuff. i thought this recent letter from Mark did a pretty good job of
> summarizing his qualifications.
>
> ICANN:
>
> I am pleased to submit my name for consideration for the AoC Review Team
> on Security, Stability, and Resilience of the DNS. I have attached a short
> CV and my statement of interest. Note that I have a formal Conflict of
> Interests statement, dated 1 August 2016, on file with ICANN.
>
> I have been a participant in ICANN since its beginnings serving as
> Secretariat to the ISPCP constituency, the Chair of the Address Supporting
> Organization, member of the RSTEP, and most recently as a member of the
> ISPCP constituency. I have also directed work on two of the Independent
> Evaluation panels for the new gTLD program.
>
> I have significant experience working with DNS infrastructure in my time
> at BT and subsequently as an advisor for Western European governments on
> Internet policy related to the DNS. In that capacity, I’ve worked on
> DNSSEC projects, standardization efforts in the IETF, andperformance and
> security management for large DNS implementations. I believe that the
> combination of technical and policy background makes for a very helpful
> addition to the SSR2.
>
> While with BT, I was responsible for policy and technical coordination of
> a global DNS implementation and worked on DNSSEC, enum and other
> infrastructure related issues.
>
> My interests in stability issues related to the DNS is broad. I have been
> a contributor to DNSOP in the IETF and to the effort to understand name
> collision in the context of the expansion of the DNS namespace.
>
> I believe that the DNS is in the midst of significant evolutionary change
> and that the security, stability and resilience of the DNS is under threat
> in ways that were not the case during the first SSR. My interest in SSR2 is
> in enhancing the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS is
> practical, standards-based, data-driven approaches with clear mandates for
> ICANN and the community that makes ICANN effective.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mark
>
> Mark McFadden
>
> Principal Consultant, Internet Infrastructure and Governance InterConnect
> Communications
>
>
> what say you all? can i expand my "absolutely" vote from me to the rest
> of you?
>
> thanks for considering this idea,
>
> mike
>
>
> WI:(715) 598-4284 MN:(651) 647-6109 Toll Free:(800) 896-0907 Fax:
> (866)-280-2356
>
>
> ------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
> ------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
>
> WI:(715) 598-4284 MN:(651) 647-6109 Toll Free:(800) 896-0907 Fax:
> (866)-280-2356
>
>
> ------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
> ------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
>
> WI:(715) 598-4284 MN:(651) 647-6109 Toll Free:(800) 896-0907 Fax:
> (866)-280-2356
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
--
Reid Fishler
Director
Hurricane Electric
+1-510-580-4178
