<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Becky,<br>
<br>
While I agree with your note(s) on the subject, there is caveat.
So first, the constraint on strings is in the registry-specific
string-space. A registrar, acting for a registrant, may register a
string, but may choose to cause the registered string not to
resolve to any resource, in particular an A record for the
associated NAME. The duty to others is not contingent upon the
registrar providing sufficient data (at least one NS record,
producing an eventual A record) to support resolution. To argue,
as some are, that this duty attaches to the resolved resource, aka
"the website", misunderstands the point at which duty to others
arises in requesting the allocation of a string from a registry
operator.<br>
<br>
We have an experience with the Fast Flux Working Group, a GNSOC
approved activity lead miserably (which is neither here nor
there), looked upon the dynamic behavior of names-to-addresses
resolutions, and concluded somewhat chaotically that when some
registries offer "rapid update" it is not a harm, and when some
registrants offer "fast flux networks" it is a harm.<br>
<br>
I suggest that the static properties of strings -- their
similarities to trademarks and so on, our policies are (a) ab
initio, and so hard to misunderstand unintentionally in the
present -- and that for the dynamic properties of strings we do
policy a means by which the resources associated with a NAME are
concealed, though not as clearly as we policy the static
properties of strings.<br>
<br>
Do we policy web sites for $bad_thing_de_jour? In my opinion, we
don't.<br>
<br>
Do we policy the means by which the existence of
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
$bad_thing_de_jour can be concealed through inconsistency in
resolution? In my opinion we do. At least that much our reach
extends beyond the static properties of strings and into the
dynamic properties of forwards and backwards name-to-address
resolution.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/23/15 10:38 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D278BC02.E7E1%25becky.burr@neustar.biz"
type="cite">
<div style="widows: 1;"><font style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 14px;" face="Avenir Next"><span style="font-size:
16px;">The question is, could ICANN’s authority to enforce
policies </span><font style="font-size: 16px; widows: 1;">regarding <span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height:
22.4px;">resolution of disputes regarding the <i>registration
of domain names</i></span></font><span style="widows: 1;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span
style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.4px;"> be
stretched to construe use of a
</span><i style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.4px;">web
site</i><span style="font-size: 16px; line-height:
22.4px;"> (as opposed to the string itself) for
defamation? </span><span style="font-size: 16px;
line-height: 22px;">I</span><span style="font-size: 16px;
line-height: 22.4px;"> agree with David, </span></span></font><font
face="Avenir Next"><span style="font-size: 16px;">I "don't
think they have that power at present, I don't think they
have had that since the beginning of (ICANN) time, and I
sure as heck don't want to them to have it once they are in
control of the root and USG oversight is removed.” </span></font></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); widows: 1;"><font
style="font-size: 16px;" face="Avenir Next"><br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>