So it should not be a problem to clarify this then..

Best,
Tamir

On 8/26/2015 3:57 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> 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
>
>