[CCWG-ACCT] Confirm language regarding string as content

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

The thesis, advanced below, is that "domain name" contains within it an 
unambiguous limitation on the scope of the Corporation's policy making 
capability, which "a sequence of labels" does not.

On 11/25/15 3:29 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> ... I'm also
> more than a little worried about the "sequences of labels" thing,
> since that re-opens the issue of where in the tree ICANN is supposed
> to stop, ...

"domain name" appears in rfc882 (Jake Feinler et alia's work circa 
1983), which incorporates the "host" language of the earlier rfc608 and 
rfc606 (Peter Deutsch's work at SRI a decade earlier). For the thesis 
that "domain name" contains some limitation on the scope of the 
contractor co-publishing, with another government contractor, a tree 
(earlier, a table), we should be able to find that limitation in some 
subsequent rfc.

In the alternative, if a "domain name" is distinct from "a sequence of 
labels", in the sense that the former necessarily exists within a tree 
co-published by US government contractors, and the latter does not, then 
the string "icann.org" is a domain name, associated with the address 
192.0.43.7, when resolved from, for the purposes of illustration, some 
device in Los Angeles, as that resolution is made relative to the tree 
co-pubished by US government contractors. The same string "icann.org", 
is necessarily _not_ a domain name, though also associated with the 
address 192.0.43.7, when resolved from, for the purposes of 
illustration, some device in Beijing, as that resolution is made 
relative to the tree not published by US government contractors (though 
the USG tree and the PRC tree differ on only a minute number of 
"strings", and without loss of generality we can assume that all such 
differences are strings which appear only in the PRC tree, generally 
associated with Han Script entries added to the PRC tree between 2005 
and 2010).

So, in what rfc may I find either the association of a limitation on 
scope within the government contractor published tree, or an association 
to the government contractor published tree and no tree published by 
some other party, for "domain name", which of necessity is absent, in 
one or the other or both parts, for "a sequence of labels"?

An appeal to the "average reader" is of course, answerable, if and only 
if, the nuances of terms of art, whether they arise from the applicable 
technology or from the applicable law, are also all that is necessary in 
the text we, and not some random collection of "average readers", are 
attempting to write, nominally for some rather serious purpose.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon