[CCWG-ACCT] Resolution of Mission Language related to regulation and contract

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:41:12PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
> I am ok with ³taking into account the use of domain names as identifiers
> in various natural languages² if that is acceptable to others.  We are,
> however, not drafting bylaws language at this point.

I completely agree we're not, and I normally wouldn't care except that
we've already been able to see that some of the technical nuances of
the identifier systems haven't been readily apparent to counsel.
People thinking that domain names somehow "have meaning" is the most
natural thing to do, and it's what I'm trying to head off.

(Remember that for computers, unique identifiers don't have meaning.
They imply a connection, but there's no signifier/signified
relationship to the computer the way there is to us.  The confusion
around this point is exactly how we've ended up with problems like
"domain name equivalence", which doesn't work and can't be made to
work reliably but which everybody wants anyway.  We do not want that
sort of commitment to worm its way into the bylaws.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com