RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Application to join Vertical Integration Working Group

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anthony,

ICANN is all about openness and transparency perhaps you have read the
bylaws or Affirmation of Commitment. May I refer you to the mailing list
archives available here, http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/ as they
hold the answers to your questions. 

Question #1: Am I the chair. 

Answer: No. If you would have read the mailing list or perhaps even the wiki
of this Working Group you would have seen that the selection of the chair is
scheduled for our first call this week. In fact to date there has been only
one nomination for chair Mikey O'Conner.

Question #2: With regard to my remuneration in connection with this Working
Group. 

Answer: Zero, zip, nada, none (your choice). Again if you had taken the time
to read the mailing list archives you would have seen not only my personal
interest statement but a rather detailed explanation of previously positions
that I have taken in connection with this subject matter both paid and pro
bono in connection with regard to this subject matter. Just ask Jon Nevett
or John Berryhill for a brief summary of my advocacy on this point over the
last 3-4 years. For your benefit here is a link to the mailing list archives
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00408.html. 


With regard to the tirades that you and Mr Kruger engaged in calling into
question my creditability during the last EOI public forum. Let me try to
clear up any confusion. While Afilias pays me as a consultant in connection
with various operational matters such as the reallocation of Sunrise Names
and the allocation of single and double character .INFO domain names, this
PDP is not such a matter. Again if you would have taken the time to engage
in even de minimis research you would have seen that during the ICANN
webinar on this subject matter I actually submitted an independent proposal
that conflicted (yes conflicted) with the proposal submitted by Afilias.
Imagine that?

With regard to you and Mr. Kruger's other tirades about me being an VeriSign
shill in connection with my role as an Adjunct Fellow for The Progress &
Freedom Foundation (http://www.pff.org). I have received no direct or
indirect remuneration from VeriSign. If anyone at the M+M or TLDH bothered
to read the full PFF website you might have seen that some other small
supporters (http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html) of the PFF such as
Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T to name just a few, also filed similar
comments in connection with the EOI as I did. However, of course you and Mr.
Kruger always put facts first, and would never want to raise the big bad
VeriSign bogey man to bias a discussion?

Notwithstanding receiving no direct or indirect compensation from VeriSign,
one client that has retained my services in connection with a pending gTLD
application had already opted to use VeriSign as a backend provider in
connection with their application. 

Anthony the whole reason I engaged in this exchange with you was for the
group to understand that TLDH has an interest in achieving no change in the
ICANN Nairobi resolution because in your own words this resolution "clearly
benefits any registry or potential registry which is not substantially
entangled in the registrar business." While achieving consensus in ICANN is
never an easy task when there are clear economic benefits to one party over
another, the chair needs to be aware of this fact to properly weigh and
document these interests in any final work product.

Best regards,

Michael Palage



-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:16 AM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Application to join Vertical Integration
Working Group

Micheal,

Delighted to run into you again as well.  I was not aware that it was your
responsibility to welcome me with a quiz as to my "vested interests" or
other bona fides.  I should have thought that this duty resided with the
Chair of the group -- are you the Chair?

But as a newcomer, as yet ignorant of the practices of this group, I must,
like a bumpkin at a fancy dinner, learn my manners by carefully watching
those who are familiar with the rules, as you seem to be, and then follow
suit.  Therefore I will assume that it is common practice to question the
integrity of group members before they have uttered a single word, and, in
the spirit of joining in, I now ask you: have you received or are you
receiving any remuneration, either directly or indirectly, either personally
or through one of the organizations or companies you are associated with,
from any of the current gTLD registries or ICANN-accredited registrars?  If
so, could you list them? I asked Ken Stubbs this question recently in
Barcelona with regard to any payments to you from Afilias, but he declined
to answer.  That seemed odd to me, and your Statement of Interest was a big
vague on this point -- perhaps you can clear it up.

As to my own interest, the Board decision clearly benefits any registry or
potential registry which is not substantially entangled in the registrar
business, as our public statement notes.  On the other hand, I think that
the separation is nonsensical, as I have clearly stated publicly on numerous
occasions, including at the Washington DC meeting which you attended as well
as at the Nairobi ICANN meeting. As to our registrar, it conducts no
business and we will use it or lose it as the circumstances dictate. 

In my opinion, the recommendations of the working group are largely
immaterial to Minds + Machines or to TLDH, since we are confident we will
succeed with or without ICANN-imposed separation.  I see one of my functions
as joining with you to identify and bring out into public view the conflicts
of interest which may be hindering the group from reaching a decision that
is truly in the interests of ICANN and the Internet as a whole. 

I look forward to your "cards on the table."

Best regards,

Antony


On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:24 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 
> Anthony,
> 
> I welcome your participation and contribution to the VI WG. However, there
> are a couple of follow-up questions I wanted to ask in connection with
your
> Statement of Interest particularly in light of the following News Release
> from Top Level Domain Name Holding (TLDH) (Minds + Machines parent
company)
> issued through RNS, a company news service from the London Stock Exchange:
> 
> "The ICANN Board resolved that there should be no cross-ownership between
> domain name registries and registrars. This prohibition will prevent
> existing ICANN-accredited registrars from owning or operating new gTLDs,
> thus limiting the number of prospective applicants.  This continues a
trend
> of increasing the barriers to application for non-experts as ICANN adds
> additional requirements and restrictions to the framework for the
> introduction of gTLDs. TLDH is unaffected by this policy and the Board of
> TLDH therefore expects that TLDH will benefit from this continuing
> separation between registrars and registries."
> 
> See
>
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-news/news/market-news
> /market-news-detail.html?announcementId=10410575 (for full press release)
> 
> Based on this statement ("TLDH will benefit from this continuing
> separation"), it appears that TLDH Board has determined that it has a
> financial vested interested from the ICANN Board Resolution passed in
> Nairobi. Therefore as a director (COO) in TLDH would you be seeking to
> maintain "this continuing separation between registrars and registries" to
> "benefit" TLDH or would you be willing to work with the rest of the group
to
> help lower "the barriers to application for non-experts?"
> 
> As an officer of TLDH could you also shed any light on Top Level Domain
> Holding Limited which appears to be an ICANN accredited registrar, see
> http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html. When clicking on
> this link on the ICANN website, it redirects a user to the TLDH corporate
> webpage, see http://www.tldh.org/.
> 
> Let me be clear I have no problem with your participation in this working
> group, I just want to make sure every participant puts all their cards on
> the table, especially those related to financial interests. This is why in
> my statement of interest I went to great lengths to document my position
on
> the subject matter going back approximately 4 years. In fact, however,
this
> is a position I first advocated back in 2001 during the ICANN Montevideo
> regional meeting when the original sponsored TLDs were seeking to
formalize
> a contract with ICANN. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael Palage
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:25 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Application to join Vertical Integration
> Working Group
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> Forwarded From: Antony Van Couvering 
> 
> 
> Hi Glen,
> 
> I am interested in joining the Vertical Integration Working Group.  I
> understand today is the deadline.  I have attached my Statement of
Interest.
> 
> 
> Please let me know what further requirements are needed, if any. 
> 
> With thanks,
> 
> Antony Van Couvering
> 
> 
>