[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

[Greg Shatan]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

>
>
> MM: Are you saying that registry and registrar services don’t use IP
> addresses or domains?
>
> ​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.
> ​
>
> MM: This is a weird and idiosyncratic application of the word “use.” You
> do use a carburetor when you drive a car. No one else uses the term use in
> the way you are doing here.
>

​GS:  I don't think my definition is at all "weird and idiosyncratic."
 Rather, I think it is rational and limited to what is directly used by the
car's end-user (the driver).  I certainly use the accelerator, brake,
steering wheel, gear shift, etc.  You seem to want an extremely broad and
attenuated definition of "use" that sucks in every possible downstream and
upstream action, process or mechanism that's involved, directly or
indirectly, in the service.  I suppose, as I type this, I am "using" the
Con Ed electric plant on 14th Street, since it's supplying the electricity
I am "using" to power this computer.  A definition like that is so broad as
to be meaningless -- but it is certainly helpful to those that would "use"
this provision to declare things they disapprove of "out of Mission." ​


>
>
> THAT is clearly incorrect. Are you saying they are not services?
>
> ​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).
>
>
>
> MM: Again, a very idiosyncratic use of the word. In fact, it is the
> regulation of service providers and even people that we are concerned
> about, not regulation of the technical processes.
>

​GS:  Again, not idiosyncratic at all -- web services and mail services are
the furthest thing from idiosyncratic -- they are the "meat and potatoes"
of services that use the Internet.  You are focusing on people and
entities, not on the Internet itself; that is a mistaken focus.


>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151122/4a749f08/attachment-0001.html>