[CCWG-ACCT] regulatory/mission issue WS2

[Greg Shatan]

I agree with Eric's closing statement: "If I may, I suggest replacing
sweeping language with specific language, or less non-specific language."

The "nits" that Eric picks show the problem with using the term
"regulation," since much of what ICANN does can be deemed "regulation,"
depending on how you (reasonably) define it.

I have no problem with trying to "appease" ISPs, as long as it doesn't have
negative consequences to ICANN's mission.

(I do have big problems with calling any of what we're trying to do
"appeasement."  This is multistakeholder give-and-take, and in a sense
everyone's looking for "appeasement," which is just a nasty way of saying
that an outcome has been achieved that meets the concerns of stakeholder
group(s).)

Greg

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

> 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 listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b5e12f71/attachment.html>