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/> >> ******************************* >