"Limitations on ICANN's contracting authority."

[David Post]

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?
David


At 04:04 PM 8/18/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>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.
>
>Paul
>
>Paul Rosenzweig
><mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
>
>O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>Link 
>to my PGP Key
>
>
>From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:54 PM
>To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>Subject: "Limitations on ICANN's contracting authority."
>
>I was reading the CCWG proposal and had one of those WTF moments
.
>
>Can someone who was in Paris or who was more 
>involved in CCWG tell me what this means:
>
>“The CCWG-Accountability 
concluded that the 
>prohibition on regulation of services that use 
>the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that
>they carry or provide does not act as a 
>restraint on ICANN’s contracting authority.”
>
>WHAT???
>
>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?
>
>Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>Professor, School of Public Policy
>Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150819/ec428e7f/attachment.htm>