mice-discuss

By thread

mice-discuss@lists.micemn.net

June 2017

16 participants
41 messages

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Andrew Hoyos

MadIX doesn't have a real structure to "go under". It's ran by the University of Wisconsin. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:12 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > > 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 > ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com > > 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com > >> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> 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 <mike(a)haven2.com> 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 <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:23 PM >>>>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>>>> 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> 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-i… >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM >>>>>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>>>>> 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM >>>>>>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>>>>>> 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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have my vote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeremy Lumby >>>>>>>> Minnesota VoIP >>>>>>>> 9217 17th Ave S >>>>>>>> Suite 216 >>>>>>>> Bloomington MN 55425 >>>>>>>> Main 612-355-7740 >>>>>>>> Direct 612-392-6814 >>>>>>>> EFax 952-873-7425 >>>>>>>> jlumny(a)mnvoip.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>>>>> From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM> >>>>>>>> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) >>>>>>>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>>>>>>> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] >>>>>>>> To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] >>>>>>>> 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 >> >> 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

June 15, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Ben Wiechman

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 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> 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 <mike(a)haven2.com> 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 <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET >> <showard(a)paulbunyan.net>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike >> O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:23 PM >> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> *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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM >> <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [ >> mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM >> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> >> *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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM >> <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [ >> 00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> <00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)lists.iphouse.net>] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM >> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> >> *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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM >> <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com>> 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> >> jlumny(a)mnvoip.com >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>> >> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> >> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders >> if he could represent us at ICANN? >> >> ------------------------------ >> From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>] >> To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> [ >> MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> 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 >

June 15, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Reid Fishler

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 <mike(a)haven2.com> 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 <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET > <showard(a)paulbunyan.net>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike > O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:23 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM > <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [ > mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> > *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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM > <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [ > 00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)lists.iphouse.net>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> > *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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM > <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com>> 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> > jlumny(a)mnvoip.com > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>> > Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if > he could represent us at ICANN? > > ------------------------------ > From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>] > To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> [ > MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] > 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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > > ------------------------------ > 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

June 15, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Mike O'Connor

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 <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@HAVEN2.COM>] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:23 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> >> 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM <mailto:JKrejci@usinternet.com>> 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.icann.org/resources/pages/mcfadden-to-roseman-2003-11-11-en> >>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/05/12/dnsop/minutes/minutes-i… <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/05/12/dnsop/minutes/minutes-i…> >>> >>> >>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> >>> 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM <mailto:JKrejci@usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request@lists.iphouse.net>] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM >>>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> >>>> 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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You have my vote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy Lumby >>>>> Minnesota VoIP >>>>> 9217 17th Ave S >>>>> Suite 216 >>>>> Bloomington MN 55425 >>>>> Main 612-355-7740 >>>>> Direct 612-392-6814 >>>>> EFax 952-873-7425 >>>>> jlumny(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumny@mnvoip.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> >>>>> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) >>>>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> >>>>> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN? >>>>> >>>>> From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>] >>>>> To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] >>>>> 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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

June 15, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Steve Howard

June 14, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Reid Fishler

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 <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike > O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:23 PM > > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM > <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [ > mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> > *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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM > <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [ > 00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)lists.iphouse.net>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> > *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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM > <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com>> 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> > jlumny(a)mnvoip.com > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>> > Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if > he could represent us at ICANN? > > ------------------------------ > From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mike(a)haven2.com>] > To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net> [ > MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)lists.iphouse.net>] > 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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > > ------------------------------ > 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

June 14, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Justin Krejci

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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:23 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@usinternet.com>> 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-i… 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM<mailto:mike@haven2.com>] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request@lists.iphouse.net>] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> 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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: You have my vote Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington MN 55425 Main 612-355-7740 Direct 612-392-6814 EFax 952-873-7425 jlumny(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumny@mnvoip.com> -------- Original message -------- From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN? ________________________________ >From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM<mailto:mike@haven2.com>] To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> ________________________________ 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

June 14, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Mike O'Connor

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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> 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.icann.org/resources/pages/mcfadden-to-roseman-2003-11-11-en> > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/05/12/dnsop/minutes/minutes-i… <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/05/12/dnsop/minutes/minutes-i…> > > > 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> > 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM <mailto:JKrejci@usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request@lists.iphouse.net>] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> >> 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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: >>> >>> You have my vote >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Lumby >>> Minnesota VoIP >>> 9217 17th Ave S >>> Suite 216 >>> Bloomington MN 55425 >>> Main 612-355-7740 >>> Direct 612-392-6814 >>> EFax 952-873-7425 >>> jlumny(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumny@mnvoip.com> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> >>> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> >>> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN? >>> >>> From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>] >>> To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] >>> 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <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 <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 <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 <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

June 14, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Justin Krejci

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-i… 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:29 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET 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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@usinternet.com>> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request@lists.iphouse.net>] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> 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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: You have my vote Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington MN 55425 Main 612-355-7740 Direct 612-392-6814 EFax 952-873-7425 jlumny(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumny@mnvoip.com> -------- Original message -------- From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN? ________________________________ >From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM<mailto:mike@haven2.com>] To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> ________________________________ 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

June 14, 2017

Re: a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN?

by Mike O'Connor

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 <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> 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 [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] on behalf of DeLong, Owen [00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:00000005a669d12e-dmarc-request@lists.iphouse.net>] > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:03 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> > 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 <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: >> >> You have my vote >> >> >> >> Jeremy Lumby >> Minnesota VoIP >> 9217 17th Ave S >> Suite 216 >> Bloomington MN 55425 >> Main 612-355-7740 >> Direct 612-392-6814 >> EFax 952-873-7425 >> jlumny(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumny@mnvoip.com> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> >> Date: 6/14/17 1:47 PM (GMT-06:00) >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> >> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] a Madison-based ICANN colleague of mine wonders if he could represent us at ICANN? >> >> From : Mike O'Connor [mike(a)HAVEN2.COM <mailto:mike@haven2.com>] >> To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net>] >> 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <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 <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

June 14, 2017