Hi Phil, On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@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/