Thank you for this. I think it is a leap forward. I appreciate the effort and the spirit in which it is offered I still have to take more than a moment with it, but I think we are moving in the right direction, at least as regards our concerns.
I still have an issue with the phrase "service that uses the Internet's unique identifiers." I've looked at this phrase a hundred times, and I would not have come up with the idea that it is limited to hardware (which are things, not services...). I think I'm far from alone in that. Also, the way you look at the clause "using the Internet's unique identifiers" is also not one that I would have taken away from this language. Registries and registrars clearly are services that use the Internet's unique identifiers; so does every other service business that uses the internet.
Maybe as an IXP this has the meaning you think it has. But we need language that is agnostic of such distinctions, especially in a corporate bylaw. I spend much of my day looking at language at the intersection of law and technology, so I should be a good audience for something like this. As such I think the "misreading" is inherent in the language and not in the reader.
To capture the meaning you attribute to the phrase in question, I would suggest the following:
"[microprocessor controlled] technologies that use the Internet's unique identifiers to access the Internet"
In this way, we have more explicitly limited the "service" as you suggest, and also limited the "use" as you suggest. And we avoid the ambiguity of the word "services," which clearly means very different things to different people.
I look forward to your thoughts and those of others persevering on this thread.
Greg