<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good evening:<div><br></div><div>This debate is becoming inconclusive to the point of being undignified. At the very least it is postponing agreement in relation to whatever transition deadlines one chooses to respect.</div><div>Why don't we just cleave to the status quo? After all, ICANN has been in business for 15+ years. Has the definition of "services" been an issue in the past? Answers to requests for examples of the problems that would be created/resolved by this or that definition of "services", have not been forthcoming. So what?</div><div><br></div><div>(a) <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>there is a large body of documented policy in many countries regarding definitions of communications services, irrespective of CCWG's opinion. </div><div> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I am not an expert in all that, but I would certainly not venture to propose that an alternative definition arising from our small group would hold sway in ICANN and beyond.</div><div><br></div><div>(b)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Insofar as there are few bottom lines in this discussion, I suggest that they do not need to be resolved before the accountability/transition process is complete: cleave to the status quo.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Opinions and economic interests will continue to differ regarding multiple classes of content facilitated or prevented by ICANN and the DNS; irrespective of what is said in the Bylaws or in ICANN contracts. In any event, ICANN has to take into account applicable local law, whether that relates to trademarks, <i>dénominations d'origine</i>, privacy, consumer protection or the practices of regulated sectors, among others. </div><div><br></div><div>Accordingly, I doubt that the eventual outcome of the current debate about the definition of "services" is really likely to move forward either accountability or the transition.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>CW</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:54, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div><span class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">As stated in the provision, a "service" for the purpose of this clause is "</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">any software process that accepts connections
for the Internet) that use the Internet's unique identifiers.</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> As such, it is clearly incorrect to say that "registrars/registries" are
"services that use the Internet's unique identifiers."" <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Greg: I don’t see how it is “clearly incorrect.” Are you saying that registry and registrar services don’t use IP addresses or domains? </span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">GS: I am saying that the type of "use" referred to here is not the use in the sense of owning a domain name or typing in a domain name, whether its being done by registry operators, registrars or my Aunt Tillie. They may initiate a chain of events that leads to a software process "using" an IP address or domain name, but initiating that chain of events is not using a unique identifier, any more than I use a carburetor when I drive a car. </div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">THAT is clearly incorrect. Are you saying
they are not services? </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">GS: In the great wide world, "services' can refer to operations that are carried out by "service providers," and more loosely, even to those "service providers" themselves. In that context, sure, they are services, and my law firm is a service, and the nail salon downstairs is a service. What I'm saying is that, in this context, in this provision, "service" does not refer to businesses that provide services, and not even to the service that the service provider provides directly to another business or individual. In this context, service refers to processes such as web services (as defined in my prior email) and mail services (as defined in my prior email). </div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">THAT is clearly incorrect. So what would this prohibit ICANN from doing? ICANN board comments asks for such specifics and it is a legitimate request.
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">David’s formulation of the prohibition is much clearer, in that it accurately reflects the intent of the prohibition. Your reversion to very specific technical descriptions, raises
the concern that ICANN could regulate the business without necessarily regulating the technology. If that is your intent, please make it clear.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">GS: I disagree (not surprisingly) with your characterization of David's formulation. As for my intent, I don't see how you derive what you've said from what I've said. We are dealing with a technical process, so some "reversion" to technical descriptions is inevitable as we explore meaning, even if what we want is a more high-level definition that is as technology neutral as possible. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><u></u><u></u></font></span></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">--MM<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</font></span></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div><span class="">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div><p class="MsoNormal">"ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its contracts -- obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication, except for implementation
of policies for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and which are developed through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process
and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names systems."<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>