No, at the highest level I'm saying that ICANN should properly regulate, enforce or get out of the way.
At the highest level the RAA, as drafted, is not an appropriate tool for regulating or enforcing anything. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. That's the entire point of the ongoing RAA revision exercise.
Its not up to me to find ways to enforce the agreement anymore than it is up to you to find ways around it.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. There are legitimate and reasoned differences of interpretation. The problem with an "it means what I say" approach is that if your interpretation, however reasonable, does not agree with whomever is assigned the role of authoritative interpreter, the RAA entitles ICANN to withdraw your accreditation. There are no other remedies in the document. Now, last year, we had a situation in which, in one context, certain ICANN staff had taken the position that since (a) a domain must be the subject of a valid registration contract, and (b) a party cannot contract with itself, then it follows: a registrar cannot register its own domain name. It was, at the time, a cute intervention on ICANN's part in a UDRP proceeding in which the complaint eventually failed, but the reasoning is utterly sound, correct, and bore the signature of Tim Cole. Who could argue with that? The domain name Tucows.com is not compliant with the RAA. It is registered to Tucows, and through Tucows, and it thus cannot be incident to a valid registration contract. So, if it is your job to "find ways to enforce the agreement", I will be pleased to see you delete this non-compliant domain name immediately. It might even get a couple of hits a day and be thus worth something in a delete auction. Now, maybe you were in the room in Florida last year when Mike Zupke informed those registrars present that ICANN would not enforce the RAA with respect to an unspecified set of domain names which a registrar registers to itself. If you were, then, congratulations, you happen to know about this particular and vague non-enforcement promise which Mr. Zupke made verbally to those who were there. It just seems fundamentally flawed that the proposition of whether Tucows.com is or is not a RAA compliant domain name depends upon whether the authoritative view of the RAA is that of Mr. Cole in August or Mr. Zupke in October. Strictly speaking, Mr. Zupke agreed that such names are non-compliant, but that there would be no enforcement taken. This pledge presumably is valid as long as Mr. Zupke is in good health and gainful employment at ICANN. The prospect is downright horrific when you go back to the main premise of the RAA - i.e. as drafted, a single non-compliant domain name is a sufficient ground to have your accreditation revoked. Yes, in practice ICANN doesn't do that. But a system of rules should not depend upon whether someone charged with enforcement happens to be in a good mood on any given day.