<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ahhh … in context I think this is clear (or at least it is to me). The concern was that by restricting ICANN’s mission and prohibiting it from regulating services or content we might inadvertently be also prohibiting ICANN for imposing other obligations on registries/registrars. All this is intended to say (and the language may be inartful) is that the mission limitation on regulation of services and content does not OTHERWISE limit the remaining contractual authorities of ICANN. That, at least, was the thrust of the conversation in Paris and that is what this summary in para 158 is intended to capture.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller@PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:54 PM<br><b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br><b>Subject:</b> "Limitations on ICANN's contracting authority."<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I was reading the CCWG proposal and had one of those WTF moments….<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Can someone who was in Paris or who was more involved in CCWG tell me what this means: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“The CCWG-Accountability …concluded that the prohibition on regulation of services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>they carry or provide does not act as a restraint on ICANN’s contracting authority.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>WHAT???<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Since ICANN regulates by contracts with registries and registrars, the prohibition on regulation of services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that they carry or provide had bloody well better limit ICANN’s ability to regulate services and content via contracts, otherwise it doesn’t prohibit anything. Am I missing something here?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dr. Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>