Ah, OK, but then what purpose does this serve at all? As David and Milton note, the prohibition is there to prevent ICANN from acting outside its mandate. Why an exception for imposing conditions to that effect by contract? Maybe this is just too abstract. Did they have any examples (or can anyone think of any) of what might be caught by the prohibition that ICANN should nonetheless be able to impose via contract? Best, Tamir On 8/19/2015 1:13 PM, James Gannon wrote: > Thats what we didn’t want, the BC wanted to add the ability for mutual > agreement and we did not. > The language in the current report doesn’t make that clear. > > -James > > >> On 19 Aug 2015, at 18:08, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> 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/> >>>> ******************************* >>> >> >