[CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users

Thu Apr 20 20:41:49 UTC 2023

Oh, sorry about that. I thought George was one of yours.  I suppose no one really wants to take responsibility for him. Honestly, I was really just trying to tease Evan. J

Jonathan Zuck
Director, Future of Work Project
Innovators Network Foundation
www.InnovatorsNetwork.org

________________________________
From: Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 4:36:47 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>; mike palage.com <mike at palage.com>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users

Your apology is accepted. Please note however, that it was not a member of the ICA who made any “outcry” and therefore your statement that you “look forward to ICA's civil and rational evaluation of this outcry by one of its members”, is factually incorrect.

Yours truly,

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak at muscovitch.com<mailto:zak at muscovitch.com>

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com>; mike palage.com <mike at palage.com>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users

Oh Hi Zak. Been a minute. Sorry, I was really just trying to make a joke and engaged in some hyperbole...perhaps a bit like the domain industry does when their interests are at stake...but that's neither here nor there. No real offense intended. I look forward to ICA's civil and rational evaluation of this outcry by one of its members.

Jonathan

Jonathan Zuck

Director, Future of Work Project

Innovators Network Foundation

www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org>

________________________________

From: Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com<mailto:zak at muscovitch.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 4:19:33 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>>; mike palage.com <mike at palage.com<mailto:mike at palage.com>>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>; Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users

Jonathan, I don’t appreciate your sentiment of “hating domainers”. It’s not conducive to civil discussion amongst stakeholders, and in any event it is an overly broad generalization without justification. Moreover, attributing Evan's concern to being "spun up by domainers" is another unjustified generalization.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

________________________________

From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 4:12 PM
To: mike palage.com <mike at palage.com<mailto:mike at palage.com>>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>; Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users

Yeah, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like some contract can give a government permission to seize a domain. Sigh. This is just so ICANN can't come after Verisign ( and PIR etc) for accommodating a court order.

For someone who hates the domainers, even more than me, Evan is sure spun up by them!

Jonathan Zuck

Director, Future of Work Project

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 mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 3:56:38 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>; Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users

Hello Olivier,

Can you provide a public reference to the thread or email list?  I am a sucker for subscribing to a good mailing list.

That being said I would agree with John’s statement. As someone who has consulted with many registry operators over the last two decades, the language in the .COM and the now proposed .NET registry agreement is not inconsistent with standards provisions across the industry.

Sadly, ICANN only requires Verisign to post its Registry/Registrar agreements. However, I was able to quickly find this legal provision from EURid in connection with .EU registrations, see https://eurid.eu/d/7556497/Terms_and_Conditions_EN.pdf

Section 6.4 - The Registry shall be entitled to immediately suspend or cancel the Domain

Name when the Registrant is in breach of the Rules.

Section  3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGISTRANT

Throughout the Term, the Registrant has the following obligations:

1. As referred to in the Registration Policy, to keep its contact information accurate, complete, and up-to-date, both (i) with the Registrar with whom the Registrant has entered into an Agreement and (ii) with the Registry (via the Registrar). Moreover, the Registrant represents and warrants that any email address communicated to the Registry shall be a functioning e-mail

address;

2. To use the Domain Name in such a way that does not violate any third-party rights, applicable laws, or regulations, including discrimination on the basis of race, language, sex, religion, or political view;

3. Not to use the Domain Name (i) in bad faith or (ii) for any unlawful purpose.

Section 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The Registrant represents and warrants that:

1. it meets the Eligibility Criteria, and it shall inform the Registry when it ceases to meet such conditions via its Registrar;

2. all information provided to the Registry during the Domain Name registration process is true, complete, and accurate;

3. the Domain Name registration is made in good faith, for a lawful purpose, and does not infringe the rights of any third party;

4. the Domain Name is not contrary to public policy or morality (e.g. is not obscene or offensive), and is not unlawful;

5. throughout the Term, it shall abide by these Terms and Conditions and any and all applicable Rules.

Therefore while the Verisign lawyers were a bit verbose our friends at EURid were much more succinct.

Net Net – I personally am not losing any sleep over the proposed mark-up to the RRA. That being said there are A LOT of other provisions in the existing/proposed .NET agreement that are giving me angst, so please tune in next Wednesday when Bill and I share our initial assessment and concerns.

Best regards,

Michael

From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Something of actual importance to end-users

Forgot the reference:
https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/com/com-amend-3-pdf-27mar20-en.pdf

On 20/04/2023 20:26, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

Worth noting: John Levine points out on another mailing list that the changes are the same as those already integrated in the .COM Registry Agreement 3 years ago and that did not cause as many ripples back then.

He also mentions that governments seize gTLD domains all the time when they get a suitable
court order. But of course I guess this is all in the details.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 20/04/2023 17:12, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG wrote:

https://freespeech.com/2023/04/19/red-alert-icann-and-verisign-proposal-would-allow-any-government-in-the-world-to-seize-domain-names/

Let's briefly put aside the boasting about ALAC's incremental involvement in the trivial agendas set by ICANN's vested interests. Here's a real example of an issue that can negatively affect end-users. The aims of the proposed modification may be laudable, but there's too much room for arbitrariness and too much potential to curb political speech unwanted by a government.

BTW ... Why was this not already flagged by ALAC as cause for concern? Why did I have to find out about this in the media rather than from the inside. Was ALAC intending to ignore it?

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. ALAC is obsessed with the trivial and the self-absorbed, but asleep during the issues that actually affect the constituency we're supposed to serve.

Does ALAC have what it takes to fight for the public interest on something that actually matters?

Is it capable of balancing the various intertwining issues? If the CPWG meets on this issue I'll be there.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada

@evanleibovitch / @el56

_______________________________________________

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.

--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230420/ee8ad40b/attachment-0001.html>