Hi Kristine, Yes. If some folks feel that MoUs are generally "sufficient", then please explain to me why all the sections of the RAA that compel registrars to require compliance with the UDRP/URS shouldn't be completely eliminated from the RAA, and instead handled separately in some MoU? ;-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> wrote:

Hi George,

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.. is it that the MOUs ICANN has with the providers are insufficient? https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs

Thanks,

Kristine

-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 5:14 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Proposal #33 - putting URS providers under contract

Hi folks,

In preparing for tomorrow's presentation, I stumbled upon the following blog post by Philip Corwin (then of the ICA) in 2013:

https://www.internetcommerce.org/urs_truth_breach/

which documented that "the STI-RT unanimously recommended that URS providers be placed under contract, and then the board unanimously adopted all of its recommendations regarding the URS"

Steve Crocker (ICANN Chairman at that time), in response to a question, noted that:

"Yes, a contract is being developed and additional URS providers will be added."

The blog post went on to say:

"But to ICANN we give a total FAIL for its disingenuous response to our question about contracts for URS providers. Rest assured, this is a subject on which we do not intend to rest or retreat."

I didn't reference this document in my proposal, but did want to put it into the record in advance of our call, to further support the background and rationale of the proposal. Folks may want to read it in its entirety, instead of simply the snippets above.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

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/