"Limitations on ICANN's contracting authority."

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Thanks, James, for stepping in and doing a better job of explaining it than
I could.  I agree with you that the summary is poorly written but you’ve
captured the context well.

 

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=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: James Gannon [mailto:james at CYBERINVASION.NET] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 12:59 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: "Limitations on ICANN's contracting authority."

 

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=articl
e&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
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         />          
******************************* 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150819/2a3c884d/attachment.htm>