[GNSO-RPM-WG] [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Proposal #33 - putting URS providers under contract

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Tue Oct 16 19:21:46 UTC 2018


Hi Phil,

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> For the record, and as I stated on Friday's WG call, the views expressed in
> that article, as indicated by repeated use of the word “we”, were those of
> my then-client the ICA and not my personal views.
>
> Therefore, nothing expressed in that article should be taken as indicative
> of my current personal view regarding any aspect of the URS, much less any
> position that may or may not be taken on any URS issue by my current
> employer.

I find your statement to be quite confusing, and perhaps you can
explain it better and with more precision. The blog post you wrote in
2013:

https://www.internetcommerce.org/urs_truth_breach/

contains both factual statements and opinions. While you and VeriSign
are entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own
facts. Are you suggesting that there is anything *factually incorrect*
in that blog post? If so, what? For example, I was relying on that
blog post's statement that "The STI-RT unanimously recommended that
URS providers be placed under contract" -- is that false? Did the
board not unanimously adopt those recommendations? Is Steve Crocker's
response false? Are the various timings of the documents and events
incorrect?

In other words, that document comes to its conclusions/opinions by
**first** stating a factual basis for those opinions. For example,

"But to ICANN we give a total FAIL for its disingenuous response to
our question about contracts for URS providers."

is obviously an opinion. In your "disavowal", it's now completely
unclear to me whether your disavow that opinion. i.e. should we now
read your email as implying that you personally and/or Verisign now
APPLAUD ICANN for their disingenuous response??

In other words, please be specific about where you think your blog
post made false statements, and which opinions you now disagree with.

Very puzzled,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list