I agree.  I think the paragraph was intended to answer the BC concerns
expressed by assuring that "within mission" contractual obligations could be
enforced.  It was, in effect, an effort to restate the obvious -- kind of
like saying "Nothing in this law shall prevent ..." in a statute ...

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: Tamir Israel [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Mission & Core Values: Could they
interfere with ICANN enforcement of contracts?

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