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

[Mueller, Milton L]

Bradley:

Doesn’t calling our registries and registrars get us back into the problem area of whether activities such as the accreditation of Privacy & Proxy services is in breach of the no-regulation clause?

MM: No, not at all. If ICANN wants to regulate Privacy and Proxy services it will do so via RAA; i.e., by regulating registrars. That is the only way it _can_ and _should_ be able to affect those services.

I had thought the goal of the draft Greg circulated was to describe the specific processes that ICANN would stay clear of imposing regulation on (the distinction being that “services” is not meant to describe entities, but rather a certain type of activity).

MM: This way Greg falls into the trap of specifying a technological method rather than an actual service. All kinds of tricks can be played with that. That is not where you want to go, believe me.

Also, the change the second bullet does not provide the clarity that is needed – it essentially makes it a narrower way saying what the first sentence says.  The point of the contractual language was to clarify that the first bullet would not impede ICANN’s furtherance of its mission via contractual agreements.  I think flipping it around doesn’t give the necessary guidance and clarity.

MM: I don’t see how it does that. I think it’s a lot clearer. The statement is meant to be limiting rather than empowering.

These are important distinctions, but I think a good step towards finding agreement on language that could satisfy broad interests.

MM: Thanks,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151113/6dd858a2/attachment-0001.html>