Thanks Paul,

In that case, then, I'm still confused as to why the paragraph is
necessary at all. It merely adds confusion and implies that ICANN is
indeed able to regulate content via contracts. If that's not what it's
intended to do, then why not simply remove it altogether. Surely there
is no need to clarify that ICANN is able to enter into contracts that,
in spite of the prohibition on content regulation, don't run afowl of
the prohibition at all.

Best,
Tamir

On 8/26/2015 2:57 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> As a follow up to Milton's question re: the "freedom of contract" issue, I
> share the below exchange from the CCWG list with you all ...
>
> P
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask] 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:07 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Mission & Core Values: Could they
> interfere with ICANN enforcement of contracts?
>
>
>
> On 26/08/2015 16:47, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>> On our Tuesday CCWG call, I raised questions from the BC and IPC about 
>> whether the new Mission & Core Values could be interpreted to prevent 
>> ICANN from enforcing certain aspects of registrar and registry contracts.
> The question of registry and registrar contracts is an entirely "second
> order" question.
>
> If the policy is within ICANN's Mission, then enforcing it through registrar
> and registry contracts is also within ICANN's Mission.
>
> Should ICANN adopt a policy outside its Mission, then enforcement of it
> through contracts would also be ultra vires.
>
> So as long as you're not worried about the policy itself, you don't have any
> reason to worry about the contract compliance side of things.
>
> Malcolm