[CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

[Mueller, Milton L]

What was wrong with this:

"Without limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers."

(from David)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:27 AM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding
> Mission and Contract
> 
> Thanks Milton.
> 
> As a contracted party, I'm all for finding the right formulation of wording, but I
> haven't seen much progress this week in that direction.
> 
> Regards,
> Keith
> 
> > On Nov 12, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Keith
> > I don't think we have irreconcilable views, and I certainly don't see any
> increase in divergence. What I see is some difficulty in formulating the
> wording right so that prohibiting ICANN from regulating other services doesn't
> get in the way of it regulating the services it is supposed to regulate.
> >
> > Even if there is divergence, it is NOT an issue that can be avoided; it is
> fundamental to ICANN's mission limitation and accountability and I would
> never agree to a transition without it. We need to resolve this, and we have to
> do it in WS1.
> >
> > By the way, it is impossible to avoid resolving this issue. If you do not
> include this prescription, you are siding with those who don't want it to be
> there - and thus overriding and ignoring the views of the people who want it
> there.
> >
> > Andrew:
> >
> >>  ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with,  and
> >> as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.
> >>
> >> With that prohibition on ICANN going out and finding new things to
> >> do, you have the explicit limitation you want.  No?
> >
> > No. Paul R has addressed this. What we have now is open to too much
> interpretation and is not a clear enough limitation. We need to have a clear
> and explicit limitation, not a general statement that ICANN will conform to its
> mission. We need to make it clear that the mission does NOT include content
> regulation.