Perhaps the question to counsel needs to be whether any of the existing PICs are inconsistent with the new Mission language being proposed. (Answering this question likely requires a combination of legal analysis and understanding ICANN policy, along with neutrality as to outcome.  Also, answering this question may take quite some time, given the number of PICs.  Perhaps specific PICs can be nominated as those most likely to cause concern or needing resolution.)  

If I understand the consequences of the CCWG proposal correctly, this means that (i) any existing PICs that are inconsistent with the new Mission language are being saved only by "grandfathering," and (ii) the same PIC would be prohibited in a Registry Agreement executed after the effective date of the new Mission language.

By the same reasoning, any new PIC would need to be judged against the Mission limitations on a case-by-case basis.

Greg

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Jorge:
>
> I feel it is fair for us to ask for a professional legal assessment of the impact of
> these changes.
>

Of course, no problem with that.
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:

> >> i.e. whether, and to what extent and/or under what
> >> conditions what we know as "PICs" -be it old or new- will be
> >> consistent with the new Mission language being proposed.

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.

--MM

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community