[CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws

[Greg Shatan]

Becky, I agree that we have a disagreement.

If we kick this to WS2, I think we need to keep Section 3 of the AoC alive
until the issue is resolved.  We can't just sunset Section 3 on the premise
that some of us think it didn't really do anything anyway.

Andrew, I don't think we have a disagreement on the point you raise.

The "DNS marketplace" is the term that's used in the AoC, so I assume there
is background and history to show how that is viewed in this context.  So,
it's not a plain-language meaning we are looking for, it is a
fit-for-purpose definition.  As such I don't think what you're describing
is part of the "DNS marketplace" for purposes of the AoC.  So I don't think
we far apart, in this regard.

Greg

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 03:47:06PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >
> > Section 3 is not unbounded.  It is limited to the "DNS marketplace."
>
> Ok.  Please tell me, what is that marketplace?
>
> My employer (Dyn), for instance, sells DNS services to companies.  We
> have many competitors.  Dyn has been at this for about 15 years.  For
> a significant chunk of that time, Dyn wasn't even a registrar (which
> Dyn only does for convenience, really -- it's not our main market).
> In any case, many of our customers use someone else for domain name
> registration and just use us for DNS.  Indeed, for part of Dyn's
> history you couldn't do any domain name registration in any TLD with
> Dyn; instead, you registered a hostname under (say) dyndns.org and Dyn
> hooked up your dynamically-assigned IP to the DNS with a 5 minute TTL
> so that you could access your machine at home or wherever.  Other
> companies are in this business too, through today.
>
> Under any plain-language meaning of the terms, those behaviours seem
> to be part of the DNS marketplace.  But I claim ICANN has absolutely
> no business, of any kind, in that marketplace, and if you're going to
> argue that it does then I think we have a very deep disagreement about
> where ICANN's responsibilities begin and end.  If we're this far apart
> on that fundamental question, then I think we have a practical problem
> of hammering out the answer.  For practical reasons, I think, we
> therefore need to kick the question to WS 2 and use the minimal
> interpretation that is compatible with everyone's interpretation.
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160113/37ee32df/attachment.html>