On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:06:38PM -0500, Greg Shatan 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.""
I'm afraid I disagree. This was the worry I tried to raise when I first suggested that language, and I noted in the chat for the call the other day. Whois (and RDAP when it's deployed) is clearly a software process that accepts connections from the Internet. EPP is also that. So is http(s), which is how most registrars interact with their customers; there are definitely rules about what they have to offer there (e.g. whois data over http -- there are even rules about what such data has to say). There is in fact an argument to be made here. I accept Becky's argument that the futher clarification that ICANN could enter into contracts to support the registration services is enough to counteract all this, but I can see why someone would be worried. This is really why I think the "not a regulator" and "can undertake contracts" sentences, however we write them, are dangerous here. The basic restriction to enumerated powers is already in place, and I think these two sentences are going to be fantastically hard to write correctly for our meaning without causing some sort of side effect. I remain unconvinced they're either necessary or a good idea. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com