Good evening: This debate is becoming inconclusive to the point of being undignified. At the very least it is postponing agreement in relation to whatever transition deadlines one chooses to respect. Why don't we just cleave to the status quo? After all, ICANN has been in business for 15+ years. Has the definition of "services" been an issue in the past? Answers to requests for examples of the problems that would be created/resolved by this or that definition of "services", have not been forthcoming. So what? (a) there is a large body of documented policy in many countries regarding definitions of communications services, irrespective of CCWG's opinion. I am not an expert in all that, but I would certainly not venture to propose that an alternative definition arising from our small group would hold sway in ICANN and beyond. (b) Insofar as there are few bottom lines in this discussion, I suggest that they do not need to be resolved before the accountability/transition process is complete: cleave to the status quo. Opinions and economic interests will continue to differ regarding multiple classes of content facilitated or prevented by ICANN and the DNS; irrespective of what is said in the Bylaws or in ICANN contracts. In any event, ICANN has to take into account applicable local law, whether that relates to trademarks, dénominations d'origine, privacy, consumer protection or the practices of regulated sectors, among others. Accordingly, I doubt that the eventual outcome of the current debate about the definition of "services" is really likely to move forward either accountability or the transition. Regards CW On 20 Nov 2015, at 19:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: As stated in the provision, a "service" for the purpose of this clause is "any software process that accepts connections for the Internet) that use the Internet's unique identifiers." As such, it is clearly incorrect to say that "registrars/registries" are "services that use the Internet's unique identifiers.""
Greg: I don’t see how it is “clearly incorrect.” 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.
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).
THAT is clearly incorrect. So what would this prohibit ICANN from doing? ICANN board comments asks for such specifics and it is a legitimate request.
David’s formulation of the prohibition is much clearer, in that it accurately reflects the intent of the prohibition. Your reversion to very specific technical descriptions, raises the concern that ICANN could regulate the business without necessarily regulating the technology. If that is your intent, please make it clear.
GS: I disagree (not surprisingly) with your characterization of David's formulation. As for my intent, I don't see how you derive what you've said from what I've said. We are dealing with a technical process, so some "reversion" to technical descriptions is inevitable as we explore meaning, even if what we want is a more high-level definition that is as technology neutral as possible.
--MM
"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."
David
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community