But this doesn't say anything about mutual agreement and, in any case,
might not that be almost worse, because you run the risk of moving to
'voluntary' mutual agreements as a way of getting around issues that
can't get resolved through the core ICANN policy-making processes.
Is there a clear process for generating mutual agreement? We've
definitely been stung by 'voluntary' before....
Best,
Tamir
On 8/19/2015 12:59 PM, James Gannon wrote:
> 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 <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[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
>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mueller, Milton L
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:54 PM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> *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
>> <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%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/>
>> *******************************
>
|
