[CCWG-ACCT] regulatory/mission issue WS2

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Becky,

As a preamble, I want to mention that content, whatever sluices between 
edge nodes (users at their computers, or watches) and clusters of ad 
revenue sharing content delivery engines, is not our policing problem. 
The resolutions of names to addresses, is however.

If I may, I'd like to pick a nit. You wrote: "no authority to regulate 
ISPs, or to use its authority over registries and registrars to do so 
indirectly."

First, could we narrow what it is we're not regulating, ISPs do a lot of 
things, but one thing they can do is operate recursive resolvers, so in 
particular, the "no authority to regulate" means no means to ensure 
continuous correct resolution of domain names by ISPs.

More generally, it means that any protocol designed to provide 
end-to-end semantics, such as digital signature or cookie policy 
(something I worked on in the W3C's P3P work early this century) 
guarantees of continuous, correctness can be exploited as a business 
model, and those business models that falsify DNS lookups have no 
liabilities, no costs, for doing so. Another means of describing such a 
system is one with "a man or woman in the middle", generally not a 
helpful man or woman. More of a pickpocket or cutpurse.

Next, still nit picking, I want to point out that currently the 
provisioning of third-parties with registry and registrar data is not 
unconditional. When I ask for access to VGRS's bulk data I have to fill 
out more then just a pro forma, when I ask for access to GoDaddy's bulk 
data again there are questions to answer and promises to make. I think 
just about everyone (contracted parties) has a TERMS OF USE paragraph in 
their WHOIS boilerplate.

So, we currently have ICANN using "its authority over registries and 
registrars to do" something limiting third-party access to and 
republication of data held by contracted parties, and we have at least a 
history, in SSAC032 and its prior work product on synthetic return.

Both are obsoleted by the sweeping prohibition language.

If I may, I suggest replacing sweeping language with specific language, 
or less non-specific language.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon


On 11/6/15 9:30 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
> All:  At the risk of causing a riot, I confess that am getting 
> increasingly concerned that we are confusing ourselves (and possibly 
> the bylaws) by trying to include and explain the prohibition on 
> regulation of services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or 
> the content that such services carry or provide.  Perhaps we would be 
> better off relying on a clear Mission statement and enhanced 
> accountability mechanisms to prevent mission creep? I could certainly 
> make the argument, based on the proposed mission statement, that ICANN 
> has no authority to regulate ISPs, or to use its authority over 
> registries and registrars to do so indirectly.  (Please note, ICANN’s 
> Bylaws currently authorize ICANN to enter into contracts.  See 
>  Article XV, Section 1).
>
> Should we discuss this approach?  The report language on ICANN’s 
> Mission Statement, reflecting the recent changes to address IAB/IETF 
> concerns, would then read:
>
> The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
> ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the 
> Internet's unique identifier systems in the ways described below. 
>  Specifically, ICANN:
>
> 1.  Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root 
> zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN’s Mission 
> is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies:
>
> •For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary 
> to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security 
> and/or stability of the DNS; and
>
> •That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi- 
> stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure 
> operation of the Internet’s unique names systems.
>
> 2.  Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name 
> server system. In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be provided by 
> root server operators].
>
> 3.  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
> level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") 
> numbers. ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and 
> RIRs.
>
> 4.  Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core 
> registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, 
> with respect to protocol ports and parameters, ICANN's Mission is to 
> provide registration services and open access for registries in the 
> public domain requested by Internet protocol development 
> organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force.
>
> ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably 
> appropriate to achieve its Mission. Without in any way limiting the 
> foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate services that 
> use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such 
> services carry or provide. ICANN shall have the ability to enforce 
> agreements with contracted parties, subject to established means of 
> community input on those agreements and reasonable checks and balances 
> on its ability to impose obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on 
> registries and registrars.
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr****
> **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:***+1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz* 
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151106/6625f2cd/attachment-0001.html>