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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite" class="">
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
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]
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
*******************************
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
*******************************