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=articl
e&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