[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

[Greg Shatan]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
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.""
>
>
>
> Greg: I don’t see how it is “clearly incorrect.” Are you saying that
> registry and registrar services don’t use IP addresses or domains?
>
​GS: I am saying that the type of "use" referred to here is not the use in
the sense of owning a domain name or typing in a domain name, whether its
being done by registry operators, registrars or my Aunt Tillie.  They may
initiate a chain of events that leads to a software process "using" an IP
address or domain name, but initiating that chain of events is not using a
unique identifier, any more than I use a carburetor when I drive a car. ​



> THAT is clearly incorrect. Are you saying they are not services?
>
​GS:  In the great wide world, "services' can refer to operations that are
carried out by "service providers," and more loosely, even to those
"service providers" themselves.  In that context, sure, they are services,
and my law firm is a service, and the nail salon downstairs is a service.
What I'm saying ​is that, in this context, in this provision, "service"
does not refer to businesses that provide services, and not even to the
service that the service provider provides directly to another business or
individual.  In this context, service refers to processes such as web
services (as defined in my prior email) and mail services (as defined in my
prior email).



> THAT is clearly incorrect. So what would this prohibit ICANN from doing?
> ICANN board comments asks for such specifics and it is a legitimate
> request.
>
>
>
> David’s formulation of the prohibition is much clearer, in that it
> accurately reflects the intent of the prohibition. Your reversion to very
> specific technical descriptions, raises the concern that ICANN could
> regulate the business without necessarily regulating the technology. If
> that is your intent, please make it clear.
>
​GS:  I disagree (not surprisingly) with your characterization of David's
formulation.  As for my intent, I don't see how you derive what you've said
from what I've said.  We are dealing with a technical process, so some
"reversion" to technical descriptions is inevitable as we explore meaning,
even if what we want is a more high-level definition that is as technology
neutral as possible.  ​

>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> "ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its
> contracts -- obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to
> the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication, except
> for 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 which are developed
> through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed
> to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names
> systems."
>
> David
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151120/048536c4/attachment.html>