[CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

[Greg Shatan]

Malcolm,

Thank you for this. I think it is a leap forward.  I appreciate the effort
and the spirit in which it is offered  I still have to take more than a
moment with it, but I think we are moving in the right direction, at least
as regards our concerns.

I still have an issue with the phrase "service that uses the Internet's
unique identifiers."  I've looked at this phrase a hundred times, and I
would not have come up with the idea that it is limited to *hardware *(which
are things, not services...).  I think I'm far from alone in that.  Also,
the way you look at the clause "using the Internet's unique identifiers" is
also not one that I would have taken away from this language.  Registries
and registrars clearly are services that use the Internet's unique
identifiers; so does every other service business that uses the internet.

Maybe as an IXP this has the meaning you think it has.  But we need
language that is agnostic of such distinctions, especially in a corporate
bylaw.  I spend much of my day looking at language at the intersection of
law and technology, so I should be a good audience for something like
this.  As such I think the "misreading" is inherent in the language and not
in the reader.

To capture the meaning you attribute to the phrase in question, I would
suggest the following:

"[microprocessor controlled] technologies that use the Internet's unique
identifiers to access the Internet"

In this way, we have more explicitly limited the "service" as you suggest,
and also limited the "use" as you suggest.  And we avoid the ambiguity of
the word "services," which clearly means very different things to different
people.

I look forward to your thoughts and those of others persevering on this
thread.

Greg


On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 04/11/2015 22:06, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > Becky and all,
> >
> > I have attached a revision to the proposed Bylaw under discussion,
> > taking the comments from various quarters into account and trying to
> > balance various concerns.
> >
> > Greg
>
> Thank you Greg. I think "strictly" should remain; the intent is indeed
> to ensure that ICANN remains within the Mission, and who is to say what
> kind of mission creep is "harmless".
>
> Your text also helpfully points out the unhelpfully vague nature of the
> phrase "as reasonably appropriate" in the first sentence. Let's delete it.
>
> I can agree with the inclusion of "negotiate and enter into", provided
> that this is also within the Mission.
>
> Attached is my suggestion for how we incorporate that phrase.
>
> The attached text is much simpler and more clear than anything we have
> had so far. If it is used, I think you will agree that there can be no
> suggestion nor any reasonable fear that ICANN's legitimate contracting
> authority is being brought into question.
>
> Can we settle on this?
>
> Malcolm.
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>        Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151104/53adadc8/attachment.html>