[CPWG] Verisign

Tue Jan 7 02:09:17 UTC 2020

Nat,

After thanking Jonathan for being so "forthcoming," you write:

  So, yes, I suspected that your involvement with At-Large was funded in
part by Verisign.  If so, I thought that should be made public in your SOI
so that your comments could be understood in that light.

Is this a mea culpa, where you're trying to acknowledge that you now
understand that there was nothing to your suspicion? And that Jonathan has
no third party interest to disclose in his SOI?

Or are you trying to keep your point alive, and implying that Jonathan was
"forthcoming" in a way that somehow supported your "suspicion"? And that
Jonathan's SOI is not "forthcoming"?

Your "If so" statement is odd at this point in the conversation, since
Jonathan has clearly stated that it is "not so".

It's not clear to me what you're trying to say or where you have ended up
in your mind on this issue you raised.  If you were trying to say that your
suspicion was unfounded, it would help to say it more clearly.  If not, it
would be helpful to understand that, too.

Can you please explain?  Thanks!

Greg

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Nat Cohen <ncohen at telepathy.com> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> Thank you for being so forthcoming.
>
> A while ago, well before joining the At-Large, I came across an interview
> with Esther Dyson published by ICANN in which she mentioned that from the
> earliest days of At-Large, Network Solutions was paying members to
> participate.  She also raised fundamental questions about ICANN's ability
> to represent the interests of the Internet community when special interests
> have the motivation and financial incentive to engage while the average
> user does not.  The whole interview is an interesting listen.  Here's a
> link to this specific part of the interview-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCgbcyBxE1o&feature=youtu.be&t=153
>
> So, yes, I suspected that your involvement with At-Large was funded in
> part by Verisign.  If so, I thought that should be made public in your SOI
> so that your comments could be understood in that light.
>
> I did find it unusual that as your passion is moviemaking, and as you have
> no apparent financial interest in the outcomes of ICANN policy that you
> would devote so many uncompensated hours to trying to shape ICANN policy,
> and that your positions so often align with Verisign's position.
>
> When the ICA protested Verisign's attempts to continue to increase the
> already inflated fees they charge to operate .com, Verisign lashed out by
> attacking domain investors -
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181102_how_much_could_businesses_and_consumers_save_if_dot_com_price_cap/
>
> In that article, Verisign suggested that the price caps should be imposed
> on the free and open aftermarket.  Your comments that end users would
> benefit from higher prices and that domain investors are the problem align
> quite closely with Verisign's positions.  So if you are being paid by
> Verisign to take these positions, then let's at least have some
> transparency about that.
>
> The ICA published a response pointing out the absurdity of a company with
> monopoly power, insulated from competition, continuously raising prices far
> above competitive levels, complaining about those who participate in an
> open and competitive market where prices are determined by market forces -
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181112_verisigns_attempt_to_increase_fees_unjustified_despite/
> .
>
> Yet the Verisign talking points continue to be echoed by many civic minded
> folks who participate in ICANN and in At-Large in particular.
>
> I agree with your comment: "The At-Large is a diverse, heterogeneous body
> with the near impossible mandate to identify and champion the interests of
> individual internet users."
>
> Indeed, it is presumptuous of any of us to speak on behalf of individual
> Internet users.  They did not select us to speak for them.  As you point
> out, there are no real qualifications to join At-Large and even riff-raff
> like domain investors are allowed to participate.
>
> The legitimacy of the ICANN model is at stake in how it balances the
> interests of registries and registrants.  Registries are overly represented
> at ICANN.  Registrants have no constituency and no actual representation.
> ICANN is unrepresentative of and unaccountable to the public interest.
>
> At-Large is the closest thing ICANN has to a registrant constituency.  If
> At-Large is made up in large part of people with ties to ISOC/PIR and
> Verisign, then it is just one more way for the registries to exert their
> influence over ICANN policy making.
>
> At-Large got it wrong in supporting the removal of price caps on .org.
> Apparently registrants care how much they pay.  Your earlier statement
> that: "However, the strongest, albeit counterintuitive argument for
> the removal of price caps is that we actually WANT higher prices" may be
> true of registries but it is not true of registrants.
>
> You and others are using your influence within At-Large, and are presuming
> to speak on behalf of the interests of end-users, to advance positions to
> enable registries to extract hundreds of millions of dollars more per year
> from registrants.
>
> At-Large has a legitimacy problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nat
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:22 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:09 PM Jonathan Zuck <
>> 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
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org > on behalf of Justine Chew <
>> justine.chew at gmail.com >
>>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 11:31:16 AM
>>
>> To: cpwg at icann.org <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> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> CPWG mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>  <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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>> 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
> 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/20200106/1f4a094d/attachment-0001.html>