So it should not be a problem to clarify this then.. Best, Tamir On 8/26/2015 3:57 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > I agree. I think the paragraph was intended to answer the BC concerns > expressed by assuring that "within mission" contractual obligations could be > enforced. It was, in effect, an effort to restate the obvious -- kind of > like saying "Nothing in this law shall prevent ..." in a statute ... > > P > > 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 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tamir Israel [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:03 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Mission & Core Values: Could they > interfere with ICANN enforcement of contracts? > > Thanks Paul, > > In that case, then, I'm still confused as to why the paragraph is necessary > at all. It merely adds confusion and implies that ICANN is indeed able to > regulate content via contracts. If that's not what it's intended to do, then > why not simply remove it altogether. Surely there is no need to clarify that > ICANN is able to enter into contracts that, in spite of the prohibition on > content regulation, don't run afowl of the prohibition at all. > > Best, > Tamir > > On 8/26/2015 2:57 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: >> As a follow up to Milton's question re: the "freedom of contract" >> issue, I share the below exchange from the CCWG list with you all ... >> >> P >> >> 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 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:07 PM >> To: Accountability Cross Community >> <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Mission & Core Values: Could they >> interfere with ICANN enforcement of contracts? >> >> >> >> On 26/08/2015 16:47, Steve DelBianco wrote: >>> On our Tuesday CCWG call, I raised questions from the BC and IPC >>> about whether the new Mission & Core Values could be interpreted to >>> prevent ICANN from enforcing certain aspects of registrar and registry > contracts. >> The question of registry and registrar contracts is an entirely >> "second order" question. >> >> If the policy is within ICANN's Mission, then enforcing it through >> registrar and registry contracts is also within ICANN's Mission. >> >> Should ICANN adopt a policy outside its Mission, then enforcement of >> it through contracts would also be ultra vires. >> >> So as long as you're not worried about the policy itself, you don't >> have any reason to worry about the contract compliance side of things. >> >> Malcolm > >