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

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:05:49PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Wouldn't it just be easier to say: "Domain names" are not included in the
> definition of "content" for purposes of this provision. ?

I'm not opposed to what you suggest.  I think the previous argument
was that in some cases they seem to be, because some people think that
regulations on offensive strings and so on are in effect content
regulations.  I thought (though I confess my brain was a little
addled) the way Becky put it was in line with what we said on the
call; I'm just suggesting the little tweak.  (In case it's going to
cause a lot of trouble, this is certainly not my ditch and I hope
today is not my day.  I'm just pointing out that opening the door to
names having a meaning is where the danger lies.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com