Colleagues, Correspondence which inadvertently didn't go to the archived ccwg-acct list. My response to Malcolm, followed by Malcolm's query. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] regulatory/mission issue WS2 Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:43:36 -0800 From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> CC: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org Malcolm, That bell has already rung. SSAC 032 has been published. The Board took note of SiteFinder. More generally, the Corporation acted to prevent correct resolutions causing harm in the case of the Conficker.C variant. Still more generally, "we" (the "community") routinely produce informational RFCs and Best Current Practices documents addressing resolver operators, as well as others. The "means to ensure continuous correct resolution" is not limited to "the authority to direct, in a compulsory sense, the operators". I suggest that this detour into my opinion on the rights of ISPs doesn't illuminate the "what's a service?" question Becky and others are struggling with. My point was we could be specific about what we're not regulating, which I suspect means "content", not ASN filtering, not route filtering, and not filtering forward and backwards name-to-address resolution. Finally, the issue is not what our work product has been, and to what effect, but what it will be, after some transition. As I observed in the conclusion of the note from which you picked the quote below, the possibility of future work on resolution is obsoleted by the sweeping prohibition language, with the exception as others have mentioned, through contracts. Cheers, Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon On 11/6/15 4:30 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On 2015-11-06 22:09, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
First, could we narrow what it is we're not regulating, ISPs do a lot of things, but one thing they can do is operate recursive resolvers, so in particular, the "no authority to regulate" means no means to ensure continuous correct resolution of domain names by ISPs.
Eric,
Are you of the opinion that ICANN does in fact have the authority to direct, in a compulsory sense, the operators of name resolvers such as ISPs in how to operate them?
Malcolm.