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

[Corwin, Philip]

When I publish an article under my name I am as careful as possible that any
facts stated within it are accurate.

When I refer to "views" I mean opinions based upon, or interpretations of the
meaning of, those and other facts.

The purpose of my prior statement was to make clear that views I expressed in 2013 on behalf of a prior client should not be attributed to me or my current employer in 2018.

Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George
Kirikos
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:22 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Proposal #33 -
putting URS providers under contract

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/
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg