Relationship to Mike O'Connor?
Likes MICE better because of our growth and success?
Ben Wiechman
Network Engineer IV
Direct: 320.256.0184
Cell: 320.247.3224
[log in to unmask]
150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Reid Fishler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't know him, but why wouldn't he go under MADIX if he is Madison
> based?
>
> Reid
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Mike O'Connor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> sorry to be a little sluggish - (rural) County broadband meeting tonight.
>>
>> i view Mark the same way i would view any extremely capable/credible
>> person who offered to represent us pro bono in a policy body that's
>> relevant to our mission. in exchange for that, he gets to continue to
>> participate in a constituency that a) he was the founding Secretariat for
>> and b) has participated in for 15 years or better.
>>
>> he might try to persuade us to reconsider, but at the end of the day we
>> would count on him represent our views not his own (like i did before him).
>>
>> since i filled this role for some time, and also had the MICE name next
>> to mine, i'd gently resist the notion that having somebody like Mark
>> represent us at ICANN would cheapen MICE's reputation. i'm pretty sure
>> that Mark would be happy to become a member if there's a mechanism for an
>> individual supporter of MICE to do that. as would i.
>>
>> to Justin's point -- i didn't mean to cast MICE as a representative of
>> ISPs. i've been using shorthand for the full name of the constituency,
>> which is the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers
>> constituency. as such the constituency of ICANN is home to both ISPs and
>> IXPs and the two kinds of organizations coexist quite comfortably there,
>> since their interests are generally quite closely aligned.
>>
>> in general, if an organization sells domain names, they participate in
>> ICANN through the Registrar Constituency. i editorialized a bit with the
>> word "simply" -- my bad.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Steve Howard <[log in to unmask]
>> <[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> This is not meant to negatively reflect upon Mark and I apologize if I
>> have misunderstood the situation (wouldn't be the first time!). I'm having
>> trouble understanding this request.
>>
>> It seems like Mark wants to be involved in ICANN policy and is trying to
>> find a place to fit himself in. He wants to represent MICE, but doesn't
>> really have anything to do with the organization. How can he be a true
>> representative if he hasn't been involved? I'm not a fan of placing the
>> MICE name next to somebody who isn't a member, hasn't been actively
>> involved, and doesn't have an ongoing role in its future. I think doing so
>> would cheapen MICE's reputation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/14/2017 05:16 PM, Justin Krejci 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Reid Fishler
> Director
> Hurricane Electric
> +1-510-580-4178 <(510)%20580-4178>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
>
