<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Colleagues,<br>
<br>
Correspondence which inadvertently didn't go to the archived
ccwg-acct list. My response to Malcolm, followed by Malcolm's query.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] regulatory/mission issue WS2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:43:36 -0800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Eric Brunner-Williams <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net"><ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Malcolm Hutty <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net"><malcolm@linx.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Malcolm,
That bell has already rung. SSAC 032 has been published. The Board took
note of SiteFinder. More generally, the Corporation acted to prevent
correct resolutions causing harm in the case of the Conficker.C variant.
Still more generally, "we" (the "community") routinely produce
informational RFCs and Best Current Practices documents addressing
resolver operators, as well as others.
The "means to ensure continuous correct resolution" is not limited to
"the authority to direct, in a compulsory sense, the operators".
I suggest that this detour into my opinion on the rights of ISPs doesn't
illuminate the "what's a service?" question Becky and others are
struggling with. My point was we could be specific about what we're not
regulating, which I suspect means "content", not ASN filtering, not
route filtering, and not filtering forward and backwards name-to-address
resolution.
Finally, the issue is not what our work product has been, and to what
effect, but what it will be, after some transition. As I observed in the
conclusion of the note from which you picked the quote below, the
possibility of future work on resolution is obsoleted by the sweeping
prohibition language, with the exception as others have mentioned,
through contracts.
Cheers,
Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon
On 11/6/15 4:30 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> On 2015-11-06 22:09, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>>
>> First, could we narrow what it is we're not regulating, ISPs do a lot
>> of things, but one thing they can do is operate recursive resolvers,
>> so in particular, the "no authority to regulate" means no means to
>> ensure continuous correct resolution of domain names by ISPs.
>
> Eric,
>
> Are you of the opinion that ICANN does in fact have the authority to
> direct,
> in a compulsory sense, the operators of name resolvers such as ISPs in
> how to operate them?
>
> Malcolm.
</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>