<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">One view would be that, as we are not changing ICANN's Mission, but merely clarifying it, all existing PICs are within the Mission, both before and after. But that may be a naive view (and possibly, an incorrect one).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Any judgment that an existing PIC would violate the new Mission language would indicate either (a) there are existing PICs that are outside ICANN's Mission, or (b) the new Mission language is changing ICANN's Mission and not merely clarifying it.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:01 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Fair point - perhaps it's my English which is limited.<br>
<br>
The question is: bearing in mind the new Mission wording and considering what kind of provisions PICs have typically been included so far, to what extent would similar PICs be consistent with the new Mission and/or what key conditions or legal contours would they need to respect specifically to be consistent with the new Mission.<br>
<br>
This would help us to assess the impact of the new Mission wording in more clearer terms.<br>
<br>
But surely some native speaker with legal training could improve this phrasing a lot...<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> Am 11.12.2015 um 17:19 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>:<br>
><br>
> Jorge:<br>
>><br>
>> I feel it is fair for us to ask for a professional legal assessment of the impact of<br>
>> these changes.<br>
><br>
> Of course, no problem with that.<br>
> I am merely saying, to get good output from legal advice, your input has to be clear. So we need to know what question are you trying to answer with legal advice? My understanding is that your question is this:<br>
><br>
>>>> i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what<br>
>>>> conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be<br>
>>>> consistent with the new Mission language being proposed.<br>
><br>
> To me, this is not an entirely clear question, it seems too open-ended. Can a lawyer tell you whether new PICs will be consistent with the mission statement when they don't know what the new PICs will be? I am saying that your question has to distinguish clearly between old and new PICs.<br>
><br>
> --MM<br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>