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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michael,

I sent an email addressing your exchanges with Antony a few hours ago. I would 
appreciate you taking the time to read it before pursuing the exchange of 
pleasantries you are having with Antony.

I am also worried that your answers contain at best partial truths, at worst 
inaccuracies.

The WG has a chair, and has had one from its inception. This was catered for in 
the GNSO Council's motion. Further, there have been more than one nominations 
for the post of permanent chair, so Mikey is not the only name put forward.

I once again ask you both to kindly stay within the confines of the subject 
matter this WG is tasked with looking at when communicating on the WG's public 
email list, and to avoid anything that may look like personal attacks.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 23 mars 2010 à 10:23, Michael D. Palage a écrit :

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>