[CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

[Mueller, Milton L]

Andrew, do you mean "taking into account the _meaning_ of domain names in various natural languages"?
--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Burr, Becky
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:41 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org>; Accountability Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to
> regulation and contract
> 
> I am ok with ³taking into account the use of domain names as identifiers in
> various natural languages² if that is acceptable to others.  We are, however,
> not drafting bylaws language at this point.
> 
> 
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/24/15, 12:34 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:14:56PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
> >>
> >> 1.     The prohibition on the regulation of ³content² is not intended
> >>to prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic meaning
> >>of domain names.
> >>
> >
> >Could I suggest a friendly amendment?  Perhaps "taking into account
> >issues with respect to domain name registrations as such"?  Or "taking
> >into account the use of domain names as identifiers in various natural
> >languages"?  Many of us are at regular pains to point out that "the
> >semantic meaning of domain names" is a empty set, since domain names
> >as such are arbitrary and have no language associated with them (and
> >might not be in a language at all -- com and org are not in themselves
> >meaningful strings).  In any case, I don't think you want even a
> >generous reading of that, because if we get into issues around the
> >meaning of domain names, we are almost certainly on the slippery slope
> >to regulating content anyway.
> >
> >It would be _really bad_ if any suggestion that domain names had in
> >themselves semantic meaning made it into the bylaws.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >A
> >
> >--
> >Andrew Sullivan
> >ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community