At 12:56 PM 11/20/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
SNIP
DP: "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, except for implementation of policies for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and which are developed through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems."
AS: Doesn't this mostly just duplicate the language already in the mission statement? (If it gets us there, I'm not going to object, but it seems strange to write the same things twice.)
What about collaborating with anti-abuse people in taking down names that are the source of attacks. Is that an imposition of an obligation on someone whose only connection to the DNS is the use you describe? It's not covered by any of those restrictions, I think. If it _is_ permitted, then we're back to the slippery slope we're trying to avoid.
This is a good example - can ICANN shut down my domain as part of its "collaboration with anti-abuse people"? I would think this would be prohibited - UNLESS it is acting pursuant to a policy " for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and which are developed through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems." That is not an insuperable bar, and shouldn't be. I could easily see how taking down names that are the source of attacks could be considered reasonably necessary to facilitate DNS security and stability. So ICANN would need to develop, through the consensus process, a policy for how it's going to deal with that - which "anti-abuse" people are they collaborating with? What process are they going to use? How will they accomplish the shut downs, technically? Is there any redress for wrongful shut-downs? Etc. If they do that, then they can go ahead; if they don't, they can't - and shouldn't be permitted to. I think that's the point of the clause - to stop the Board from doing things like this on its own. David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************