"Limitations on ICANN's contracting authority."

[Tamir Israel]

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.

Is there a clear process for generating mutual agreement? We've
definitely been stung by 'voluntary' before....

Best,
Tamir

On 8/19/2015 12:59 PM, James Gannon wrote:
> Sorry guys Im only catching up on this now.
> So yes that wording is terrible and needs to be updated.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> But I agree that the language does not reflect that adequately.
>
> -James Gannon
>
>
>> On 19 Aug 2015, at 17:00, David Post <david.g.post at GMAIL.COM
>> <mailto:david.g.post at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>> Link to my PGP Key
>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> *From:* Mueller, Milton L
>>> [mailto:milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU
>>> <mailto:milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU>]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:54 PM
>>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> <mailto: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
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>book (Jefferson's
>> Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n      
>> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
>> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
>> <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>publications etc. 
>> http://www.davidpost.com        
>> <http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/>
>> *******************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150819/db615a23/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150819/db615a23/attachment.sig>