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]
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
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