NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_760E80BA-74E9-463E-A2AA-0577F3C6B573"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Date:
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:08:42 -0700
Reply-To:
Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2320 bytes) , signature.asc (505 bytes)
Agreed that this language is problematic and needs to be clarified.  Otherwise, it could open the door to all sorts of ICANN content regulation down the line.

Thanks for flagging the issue!

Best,
Robin

On Aug 26, 2015, at 11:57 AM, 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
> -- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
> Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> 
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 



ATOM RSS1 RSS2