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
*******************************