Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:00:38 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>Link
>to my PGP Key
>
>
>From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:54 PM
>To: [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
book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications
etc. http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************
|
|
|