<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Sorry guys Im only catching up on this now.
<div class="">So yes that wording is terrible and needs to be updated.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The actual meaning behind this was as a result of a comment from the BC in PC1 that sought to allow ICANN compliance to enforce restrictions that may be outside of its mission in cases where those restrictions were as a result of mutual agreement
between the registry and ICANN. We fought against that path for obvious reasons, and the response from the BC was that without their language they felt that ICANN wouldn’t be able to enforce its rightful compliance mission through its ability to contract with
registries.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Many of us disagreed with that and felt that the language as it stands now does not prohibit or hinder ICANN from entering into contracts where they have a compliance responsibility.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">But I agree that the language does not reflect that adequately.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">-James Gannon</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 19 Aug 2015, at 17:00, David Post <<a href="mailto:david.g.post@GMAIL.COM" class="">david.g.post@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">But if that's the meaning of the laguage, shouldn't we still be worried about it? I would think that the mission statement SHOULD "prohibit ICANN from imposing other obligations on registries/registrars," no? That is, ICANN should not be permitted
to impose obligations on registries/registrars, by contract or otherwise, obligations that are not within its mission - doesn't this language cut dramatically against that?
<br class="">
David<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
At 04:04 PM 8/18/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">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.<br class="">
<br class="">
Paul<br class="">
<br class="">
Paul Rosenzweig<br class="">
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" class="">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<br class="">
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br class="">
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br class="">
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br class="">
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br class="">
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" class="">Link to my PGP Key</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">From:</b> Mueller, Milton L [<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU" eudora="autourl" class=""> mailto:milton.mueller@PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU</a>]
<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:54 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" class="">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b> "Limitations on ICANN's contracting authority."<br class="">
<br class="">
I was reading the CCWG proposal and had one of those WTF moments….<br class="">
<br class="">
Can someone who was in Paris or who was more involved in CCWG tell me what this means:
<br class="">
<br class="">
“The CCWG-Accountability …concluded that the prohibition on regulation of services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that
<br class="">
they carry or provide does not act as a restraint on ICANN’s contracting authority.”<br class="">
<br class="">
WHAT???<br class="">
<br class="">
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?<br class="">
<br class="">
Dr. Milton L. Mueller<br class="">
Professor, School of Public Policy<br class="">
Georgia Institute of Technology<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
*******************************<br class="">
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation<br class="">
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl" class="">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br class="">
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl" class="">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br class="">
music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" eudora="autourl" class="">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
</a>publications etc. <a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl" class="">
http://www.davidpost.com </a><br class="">
******************************* </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>