<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<base href="https://e-aj.my.com/" target="_self"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Paul:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p style="margin-top:0in">I continue to be very troubled that we cannot put into words this very fundamental concept. All agree there are some limited circumstances when ICANN can and should be allowed to impose restrictions on activity through contract.
All agree that there are many other circumstances in which that sort of action by ICANN would be illegitimate. The Board's proposal seems to leave the question open to later interpretation and for that reason I don't favor it -- but I also think it is imperative
that some definitional language be hammered out .... without it the entire premise of IRP review and a limited ICANN mission founders.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: You have hit the nail on the head here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I think we can put it into words – and we must. We can make progress by recognizing what is on and off the table.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">It should be clear by now that the “software process” definition does not do what needs to be done. Because it concentrates on describing a technical process
that is so fundamental to the Internet his definition, oddly enough, has the potential to be massively over-inclusive. Second, again because it focuses on a technical process, it could fail to capture certain kinds of leverage that ICANN might illegitimately
exert over Internet users or service providers through its contracts. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I still don’t see what is wrong with this as a starting point:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">“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.“ One could add to this some specific references to content regulation, but overall David Post’s
longer version of this was fine to me. I think we need to shift to that as our reference model for the language going forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I think Greg’s objections to this language, which are based on the notion that the language goes beyond “services” to include entities and people – have
been shown repeatedly to be out of step with what people who are advocating this restriction want it to do. Here is a reminder of what we want the proscription to do:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">From David Post:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> At the same time, I assume everyone also agrees that ICANN should NOT
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> be permitted to impose restrictions/obligations/regulations on
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> registrants that are not "like these" - that it can't use its power
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> over the Amazon.com domain name to tell Amazon what kind of products
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> and services it can or cannot offer, or how it has to deal with fraud
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> complaints, or what privacy protections it needs to include in its
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> operations; for things "like that." ICANN should NOT have the power to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> take down the domain (directly or indirectly, i.e. by requiring registrars to do the takedown for them).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">I also think that James Gannon's list was good.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> We don’t want ICANN to be able to insert ‘voluntary’ provisions into
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> its contracts that allow it to stray outside its mission.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> We don’t want ICANN to be able to or be placed into a position of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> policing content. We don’t want ICANN to be the policeman of the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> internet We want ICANN to be able to enter into contracts an enforce
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> them, when they have been entered into in good faith with regards to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> ICANNs mission and role within the DNS ecosystem<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Bottom line: we are going to have to abandon the technical definition of service approach and work from these criteria.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>