<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Fair enough David, but I am skeptical. First, such negation declarations have a way of being ignored by courts in ways that actual lanague is not. Second, the negation is particularly likely to be ineffective when the drafting history is so robust and so … frankly … contradictory. Given the posts we’ve seen from many on this list – well educated and thoughtful ones from e.g. Greg and Malcolm – the absence of any clarification and firm result – one way OR the other – will be seen as purposefully baking in ambiguity and papering over differences. That is certainly how I would read it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Or to put it in the affirmative – if we cannot state in plain language what it is that ICANN can do and what it cannot, we can’t reasonably expect the IRP to understand that. For myself, I could probably accept your limitation as helping in that regard …<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:45 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><br><b>Cc:</b> 'Burr, Becky' <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; 'ACCT-Staff' <acct-staff@icann.org>; 'Accountability Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>At 02:10 PM 11/11/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>As I said earlier, there are two reasons not to do what Becky proposed, even though it is quite an elegant effort to say more by saying less. The first is the unfortunate drafting history that will give credence to arguments that the deletion has meaning. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>But that can be relatively easily dealt with by means of an accompanying statement, no? "The deletion does not reflect a consensus that ICANN is authorized to regulate content. The consensus is in precisely the opposite direction, but we believe that this is already achieved by the language in the mission statement ..." or something like that?<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>The second is that affirmative restrictions are much more readily enforceable than are limitations on authorization – compare in the US our muddled Commerce Clause jurisprudence with most (though admittedly not all) of our understanding of the Bill of Rights. I still think it would be a very unfortunate mistake with long-term collateral adverse unintended consequences.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>I can see that - as I said, I'd support including something like: <br><br>"Without limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." <br><br>Doesn't that do the job? If you think it doesn't, what is it about the missing language (referring to the impermissibility of regulating "services that use the Internet's unique system of identifiers") that you think needs to be in there?<br><br>David <br><br> <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <br><b>From:</b> David Post [<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com"> mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:17 PM<br><b>To:</b> Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> ACCT-Staff (<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>) <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>; Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract<br> <br>At 11:58 AM 11/11/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>So you would drop both the language about regulation and the language about contracts? If so, that's what I proposed several days ago (which was not well received.). Or am I misunderstanding?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Yes, that is my position; I would support dropping both. <br><br>The contract language should be dropped because the language proposed would do substantial damage to much of the entire accountability project, giving ICANN an easy way to work around the limitations in the Mission Statement.<br><br>The "regulation" language does less harm, so in my opinion dropping it is less critical. But I don't think it adds anything much beyond additional confusion to the mission statement; if the mission statement doesn't already prohibit this kind of "regulation," we should amend it so that it does. I think it already does the job, but I wouldn't object strongly if the final proposal contained something like a statement that <br> "Without limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers."<br><br>David<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>On Nov 11, 2015, at 8:39 AM, David Post <<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com">david.g.post@gmail.com</a> > wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>At 09:10 PM 11/10/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>SNIP So I will restate the specific questions for the CCWG:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "To the extent <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>that registry operators voluntarily assume obligations with respect to <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>registry operations as part of the application process, ICANN should have <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>the authority to enforce those commitments.²<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I disagree. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>This is the camel sneaking its nose under the tent. ICANN is, in effect, a monopoly provider of registration (and other) services to the Internet community. Having a single provider of these services is, of course, desirable for many reasons. But like all monopolists, it can get consumers of its services to "voluntarily assume" any number of obligations - with respect to both price and non-price terms in their contracts - that are not in the best interest of the community as a whole, and which consumers would never agree to in a competitive market where there were alternative sources of supply to which they could turn. This is precisely what the accountability mechanisms should be guarding against. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>The whole point of this accountability exercise, and of the careful delineation of ICANN's Mission, in my opinion, is to ensure that ICANN cannot act outside of that mission - including acting by means of including (and enforcing) contractual terms that are offered to, and "voluntarily" assumed by, registries and registrars (who have no alternatives to accepting ICANN's terms).<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>2. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "ICANN shall not <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>content that such services carry or provide.² - Wherever you land, please <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>explain what you mean by ³regulate² and ³services."<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I agree with the thrust of this statement, though I do not believe that it is well-crafted to the job it is trying to do. The statement, in context, is intended just to clarify the "absolute prohibition" against acting in a manner that is not "reasonably appropriate to achieve [ICANN's] mission," without limiting that prohibition in any way. But it is not doing that job well. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>First, I don't know what definitions of "regulate" and "services" could make the statement that "ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers" a correct one. Registries and registrars offer "services" that "use the Internet's unique identifiers" - if "services" means what it ordinarily means ("the performance of any duties or work for another; helpful or professional activity" - Webster's). And ICANN clearly "regulates" registries and registrars - if "regulates" means what it ordinarily does, i.e. proposing, imposing, and enforcing binding rules of conduct on those entities. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>So saying "ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers" is, at best, muddying the waters.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>As for regulating "the content that such services carry or provide," if this is not already taken care of in the Mission Statement, it should be. I believe that it is. ICANN can only <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>"coordinate the development and implementation of policies for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability [and] that are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names system." <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>As long as there's no "contract exception" to that "absolute prohibition," this excludes the kind of content regulation we're concerned about. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>David<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>******************************* <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post">http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>book (Jefferson's Moose) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc. <a href="http://www.davidpost.com %20/">http://www.davidpost.com </a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>******************************* <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>*******************************<br>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation<br>blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post">http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br></a>book (Jefferson's Moose) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br>music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc. <a href="http://www.davidpost.com %20/">http://www.davidpost.com </a><br>******************************* <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>*******************************<br>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation<br>blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post">http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br></a>book (Jefferson's Moose) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br>music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc. <a href="http://www.davidpost.com /">http://www.davidpost.com </a><br>******************************* <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>