[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

[Greg Shatan]

Andrew,

I strongly agree with your concluding statement:

This is really why I think the "not a regulator" and "can undertake
> contracts" sentences, however we write them, are dangerous here.  The
> basic restriction to enumerated powers is already in place, and I
> think these two sentences are going to be fantastically hard to write
> correctly for our meaning without causing some sort of side effect.  I
> remain unconvinced they're either necessary or a good idea.


​We are (unfortunately) down that rabbit-hole, and I think further efforts
will just dig new tunnels, none of which will lead to daylight.​
 Extracting ourselves entirely from the rabbit hole would be a far, far
better thing.

Greg

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> and I believe we  should seriously consider the advice of the guy that
> has no vested interest in this part of ICANN's mission.
>
> avri
>
> On 20-Nov-15 12:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:06:38PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >> As stated in the provision, a "service" for the purpose of this clause
> is "any
> >> software process that accepts connections for the Internet) that use the
> >> Internet's unique identifiers." As such, it is clearly incorrect to say
> >> that "registrars/registries" are "services that use the Internet's
> unique
> >> identifiers.""
> > I'm afraid I disagree.  This was the worry I tried to raise when I
> > first suggested that language, and I noted in the chat for the call
> > the other day.  Whois (and RDAP when it's deployed) is clearly a
> > software process that accepts connections from the Internet.  EPP is
> > also that.  So is http(s), which is how most registrars interact with
> > their customers; there are definitely rules about what they have to
> > offer there (e.g. whois data over http -- there are even rules about
> > what such data has to say).  There is in fact an argument to be made
> > here.
> >
> > I accept Becky's argument that the futher clarification that ICANN
> > could enter into contracts to support the registration services is
> > enough to counteract all this, but I can see why someone would be
> > worried.
> >
> > This is really why I think the "not a regulator" and "can undertake
> > contracts" sentences, however we write them, are dangerous here.  The
> > basic restriction to enumerated powers is already in place, and I
> > think these two sentences are going to be fantastically hard to write
> > correctly for our meaning without causing some sort of side effect.  I
> > remain unconvinced they're either necessary or a good idea.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > A
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151120/5558593e/attachment.html>