[CPWG] Verisign

Mon Jan 6 15:22:33 UTC 2020

Yes, definitely. It was in my SOI at the time. I haven’t had too many dealings with them but I found Keith Drazek to be a pretty honest broker during the CCWG efforts to build an accountability framework prior to the transition so, when the DC fights (Ted Cruz, etc.) began, I went to Verisign among others, for help with our efforts to mobilize our members at ACT to make the case for the transition in DC. At the time, ACT counted among its sponsors Microsoft, AT&T, Apple, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox and Disney and I was in the IPC for many years, mostly criticizing Verisign on things like thick whois. After lobbying for stronger IP for 20 years, I’m still a bit of an IP hawk as my At-Large colleagues will attest, despite no longer having any more IP related sponsors.

Another, looser, connection is that I’m still technically on the board of NetChoice which I spun out of ACT many years ago to fight barriers to ecommerce but I haven’t had any operational role in NetChoice since spinning it out. NC counts Verisign as one of its members.

A few years ago, I retired from ACT to focus on two non-profits, DC Dogs and The Innovators Network Foundation, neither of which has much to do with IG but I didn’t want to leave the community so I joined the At-Large primarily to be a part of the implementation of the review related reforms. I’ve been pretty focused on process in the At-Large, rather than pursuing any particular policy agenda. I’m fairly certain that I’ll be opposing Verisign, and the contracted parties generally, more often that agreeing with them because of DNS Abuse. I imagine the contracted parties aren’t too happy about the CCT Recommendations or the At-Large recommendations in that arena nor many upcoming recommendations for reform prior to a new round.

So all of this has been part of the public record as is my reform oriented agenda at ICANN (“Metrics Man”) and I think that record speaks for itself. I’m not sure ad hominem is any better an approach on this than Jacob’s ad Nazium arguments in his Circle ID post. The At-Large is a diverse, heterogeneous body with the near impossible mandate to identify and champion the interests of individual internet users. Our job is made all the more difficult by our open door membership policy that makes it possible for folks, who have never shown an interest in individual end users, to join as individual members, when their business interests appear to be at stake. Throwing around platitudes like “of course, our interests are aligned with end users” along with ad hominem attacks doesn’t really advance the debate. Instead, focus on the points being made and let’s see if we can find consensus on how the At-Large should proceed. I thought your email to Evan was thoughtful and I plan to read it more carefully.  More of that would be ideal if you’d like to continue to participate in At-Large deliberations.

This thread began because I shared Alvin’s article on what’s at stake for domain investors and I don’t envy the position in which you find yourselves. That said, it has little or nothing to do with the interests of individual end users who are more likely to benefit from a price hike, especially if some of that money gets invested in security and stability activities. Individual end users don’t care about the wholesale price of domains. They care about whether they’re getting to the site they intend, that the site won’t infect their machine with malware, that the site won’t commit fraud on them, etc. etc., and those individual end users are, unfortunately for you, our constituency here in At-Large.

From: Nat Cohen <ncohen at telepathy.com>
Date: Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:03 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: "cpwg at icann.org" <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Verisign

Alan - Jonathan is capable of speaking for himself.  So let's ask him.

Jonathan - have you ever been compensated by Verisign, by a Verisign lobbyist or a related entity?

Regards,

Nat

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:40 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Nat, I have largely stayed out of the PIR discussion, but here I have to intervene.

First, In case you are not familiar with my background, let me present some credentials;

- I have been actively involved with At-Large since 2006, was an ALAC member for ten of those years, and was ALAC Chair for four years.
- ALAC had always taken an interest in issues related to registrants, where those needs do not conflict with those of the greater non-registrant population
- I initiated the PDP on domain tasting, a practice that allowed a very small number of domain investors to take unfair advantage of certain rules, allowing them to register "valuable" domains in great quantities without paying fees that would normally be associated with the business. So I do nave a fairly long and deep understanding of the domain investing business.
- I initiated and chaired a PDP and the protected registrant rights at expiration time. So I believe my track record shows some concern for registrants.

I have also been accused of "adopting talking points" of various other groups where the speakers apparently felt that I was betraying the At-Large cause because we happen to agree, in specific situations, with those who might otherwise be perceived as our enemies.

Jonathan is new to At-Large, but he well understands what we are here for. And if that means he at times agrees with some position taken by PIR or Verisign, or even domain investers!, you can be sure that he has thought it through and is not doing it for any reason other than he believes it is in the best interest of Individual Internet Users. You may disagree with what he says (and I do on occasion), be he is not doing it in blind support of some other interest.

Alan

At 05/01/2020 12:28 PM, Nat Cohen wrote:

Jonathan,

I find it disturbing that while you are participating in At-Large nominally as a representative of the best interests of end-users, you consistently adopt talking points pushed by Verisign and PIR and bash domain investors.

While domain investors are affected by price hikes, so is each and every registrant of .org and .com.  You have so far failed to explain why it is in the best interests of .org and .com registrants to pay unjustified higher prices to continue the use of their domain names, for the sole benefit of those registries that are already being overpaid for the services they provide.

For those with an interest, here is the link to the ICA's statement laying out many reasons for concern with the handling and the terms of the proposed renewal of the .com agreement: https://www.internetcommerce.org/ica-statement-on-icanns-announced-changes-to-the-com-registry-agreement/

Regards,

Nat Cohen
President
Telepathy, Inc.
www.Telepathy.com<http://www.Telepathy.com>

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:09 PM Jonathan Zuck < JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
My point, to be clear, is that these price hikes really only affect the investor community and will, as Evan has suggested, help clear some clutter out of the secondary market.
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>
________________________________
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 11:31:16 AM
To: cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org> <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] The crux of the COM issue

Somewhat reminiscent of what was suggested as the third position in the ALAC Statement of May 2019 on the .org RA renewal.
Justine Chew
-----

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 00:03, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
I can't find an copy of the NCSG letter on the ICANN website but a copy is posted on the Internet Gov. org site ( https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/12/11/icann-told-to-make-ethos-capital-conform-to-original-org-rfp-criteria/ )
NSCG is asking for (among other things):
A revised notification procedure in which wholesale price increases of any amount give ORG registrants 6 months to renew their domains for periods of up to 20 years at the pre-existing annual rate. Implementation of this revised notification procedure must be obligatory to both PIR as well as any registrar through which .org domain names are registered and/or renewed.
Marita

On 1/5/2020 10:43 AM, Marita Moll wrote:

Milton Mueller suggested that angle quite awhile ago and I think it forms part of their letter to ICANN  re: this issue. It is one of the contractual things that is actually within ICANN's purview and, from what I have read, would not be very appealing to a for profit private equity firm -- seriously limits their options.
Marita
On 1/4/2020 10:40 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:

https://www.kickstartcommerce.com/about-that-10-year-renewal-strategy-for-com-domains.html
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

_______________________________________________

CPWG mailing list

CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of

your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list

accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy

(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of

Service

(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link

above to change your membership status or configuration, including

unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery

altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________

CPWG mailing list

CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of

your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list

accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy

(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of

Service

(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>

https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link

above to change your membership status or configuration, including

unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery

altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200106/a9c2844e/attachment-0001.html>