[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Mon Nov 23 19:11:57 UTC 2015


Becky,

While I agree with your note(s) on the subject, there is caveat. So 
first, the constraint on strings is in the registry-specific 
string-space. A registrar, acting for a registrant, may register a 
string, but may choose to cause the registered string not to resolve to 
any resource, in particular an A record for the associated NAME. The 
duty to others is not contingent upon the registrar providing sufficient 
data (at least one NS record, producing an eventual A record) to support 
resolution. To argue, as some are, that this duty attaches to the 
resolved resource, aka "the website", misunderstands the point at which 
duty to others arises in requesting the allocation of a string from a 
registry operator.

We have an experience with the Fast Flux Working Group, a GNSOC approved 
activity lead miserably (which is neither here nor there), looked upon 
the dynamic behavior of names-to-addresses resolutions, and concluded 
somewhat chaotically that when some registries offer "rapid update" it 
is not a harm, and when some registrants offer "fast flux networks" it 
is a harm.

I suggest that the static properties of strings -- their similarities to 
trademarks and so on, our policies are (a) ab initio, and so hard to 
misunderstand unintentionally in the present -- and that for the dynamic 
properties of strings we do policy a means by which the resources 
associated with a NAME are concealed, though not as clearly as we policy 
the static properties of strings.

Do we policy web sites for $bad_thing_de_jour? In my opinion, we don't.

Do we policy the means by which the existence of $bad_thing_de_jour can 
be concealed through inconsistency in resolution? In my opinion we do. 
At least that much our reach extends beyond the static properties of 
strings and into the dynamic properties of forwards and backwards 
name-to-address resolution.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon


On 11/23/15 10:38 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
> The question is, could ICANN’s authority to enforce policies regarding 
> resolution of disputes regarding the /registration of domain names/ be 
> stretched to construe use of a /web site/(as opposed to the string 
> itself) for defamation? I agree with David, I "don't think they have 
> that power at present, I don't think they have had that since the 
> beginning of (ICANN) time, and I sure as heck don't want to them to 
> have it once they are in control of the root and USG oversight is 
> removed.”
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151123/8b4182ef/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list