<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    But this doesn't say anything about mutual agreement and, in any
    case, might not that be almost worse, because you run the risk of
    moving to 'voluntary' mutual agreements as a way of getting around
    issues that can't get resolved through the core ICANN policy-making
    processes. <br>
    <br>
    Is there a clear process for generating mutual agreement? We've
    definitely been stung by 'voluntary' before....<br>
    <br>
    Best,<br>
    Tamir<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/19/2015 12:59 PM, James Gannon
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:B0032114-3555-4348-9A44-CC6163138668@cyberinvasion.net"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      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
                moz-do-not-send="true"
                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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                    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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
                    moz-do-not-send="true"
                    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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                    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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0"
                  eudora="autourl" class="">
                  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n       </a><br class="">
                music <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0"
                  eudora="autourl" class="">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
                </a>publications etc.  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/"
                  eudora="autourl" class="">
                  http://www.davidpost.com         </a><br class="">
                ******************************* </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br class="">
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>