On 16/11/2015 22:46, Greg Shatan wrote:
Perhaps there's a way to combine these various thoughts in a manner consistent with the overall direction, for instance in the following synthesis:
* ** ICANN shall not impose regulations on: ** o ** *Information services *(i.e., any software process that accepts **connections from the Internet) that* use the Internet’s unique identifiers, other than those covered by the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) or **the Registry Agreement (RA), or * o * t he content that such information services carry or provide*
or, alternatively (if the carve-out for the RAA/RA seems confusing, unnecessary or overbroad)
* ** ICANN shall not impose regulations on: ** o ** *Information services *(i.e., any software process that accepts **connections from the Internet) that* use the Internet’s unique identifiers, ** or * o * t he content that such information services carry or provide*
In order to focus this email, I haven't touched on the second sentence, which we should finalize as well.
I have been reading this thread with interest. I haven't commented so far, because I don't want to burden the discussion with further constraints. So long as the eventual text honours the original intent (and I think all the variants under discussion do), I could live with any of these options if that is what is required to reach agreement, even those that have been shown to be technically defective. That said, I do think we would be wise to take on board Andrew's observation that not all Internet communications are "viewed", and indeed some are purely machine-to-machine communications. Partly for this reason, and in the interests of simplicity, my favourite option of those recently tabled is the aggregate Greg proposes above, namely: ICANN shall not impose regulations on: a) Information services (i.e., any software process that accepts connections from the Internet) that use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or b) the content that such information services carry or provide. I would also be content with an explicit carve-out for the RA and RAA if that is thought necessary. However, I do have one serious concern on one offer of text. In the phrase "other than those covered by the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) or the Registry Agreement (RA)" I'm afraid "covered by" is unacceptably broad; it could be read as including anything mentioned within those contracts, which woud enable those that agree such contracts to defeat the previous clause. I am not clear on the underlying rationale, but I am guessing that the RA/RAA contracts may impose requirements on the information services (e.g. web sites) provided by Registries and Registrars, and so a carve-out is needed so that this may continue. If this understanding is correct, I would suggest "other than information services provided by parties to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) or the Registry Agreement (RA)" I hope that helps. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA