[council] Re: NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLS presented to theICANN Board

["M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>]

Title: Re: NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLS present

Thank you, Phillip. It is helpful to have the complete report. I appreciate all of the hard work that has gone into this consideration.

Stuart

At 2:33 PM +0200 7/29/02, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Vint and
> Stuart,
> further to the Board
> request please find below the NC report on the WLS. The report
> can also be found at the following URL:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/NCFinal-report-WLS.html
> Philip
> Sheppard
> Names Council
> Chair
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Final Report of the Transfer Task Force on the WLS Proposal Presented
> to
>                            the DNSO Names Council
>
>                           Wednesday, July 24, 2002
>
> Submitted by Marilyn Cade, Chair
>
> On behalf of the Transfer Task Force
>
> The Final Report of the Transfer Task on the Verisign WLS proposal
> is
> forwarded to the Names Council for discussion and vote.  The
> Final Report
> includes the following information and elements:
>
> I.  Executive Summary
>
> II.  Background on Recommendations and Recommendations
>
> III.  Report and Supporting Materials
>
> A.     Request to undertake comment/consensus on
> WLS, including Board
> request that the TF present a final report, taking into
> consideration
> Verisign?s agreement to provide substantive modifications in their
> request
> for approval for the WLS service
>
> B.     Summary of the Work of the TF which
> describes
>
> 1.      Documentation on extent of agreement
> and disagreement among impacted
> parties
>
> 2.      Outreach undertaken/input received in
> various public fora (including
> links to
>
> 3.      All substantive submissions to
> achieve adequate representation of
> those likely to be impacted
>
> 4.      Statement on nature and intensity of
> reasoned support and opposition
> to the proposed policy recommendation
>
> IV.  Additional materials from Task Force:  Link to
> PowerPoint Presentation
> presented to DNSO Names Council, which offers a summary to the
> community,
> including the draft recommendations of the TF
>
> V.                 Separate statements from
> constituencies
>
> VI.              Action Requested
>
> VII.           
> Appendices
>
>
>
> I.  Executive Summary:
>
> The Transfer Task Force (Task Force or TF) was requested to consider
> and
> provide comments on the introduction of a wait listing service, 
> based on
> technology/services provided by SnapNames and provided by the
> Verisign
> Registry. Following Bucharest, the  Task Force based its
> discussions and
>
> considerations on  the WLS as proposed to ICANN in March,
> modified by the
> three changes offered by Verisign, in Bucharest. Extensive discussions
> and
> outreach efforts were undertaken by the Task Force; including
> presentations
> by both SnapNames and Verisign. Extensive outreach was undertaken
> via
> various public fora; conference calls which were open to interested
> parties
> to provide input to the Task Force. 
> Efforts were made to document the range
> of comments and input received; task
> force members read the submissions via
> the various fora and reviewed the
> petitions posted, as well studying the
> extensive submissions of SnapNames providing clarification,
> explanation, and
> their views. The Task Force developed and published two
> recommendations -
> one preferred recommendation, which recommends denying the WLS
> service, and
> an alternate recommendation which describes those conditions which the
> Task
> Force recommends, should the Board approve the WLS service.
>
> The recommendations are forwarded to the Names Council  for their
> discussion
> and approval at their meeting on July 24, 2002. The Task Force asks
> that
> their recommendations be voted on, affirmatively, and forwarded to
> the
> Board.  The Task Force is available to respond to further
> questions and
> issues that the Council might have in order to support the Names 
> Council
> providing a final report to the Board by July 26, 2002, based on the
> Task
> Force final report.
>
>
>
> II.  Background on Recommendations and Recommendations
>
> The Task Force developed and presented two recommendations.  
> The vote for
> both Recommendations is a matter of record, and is attached in
> Appendix A.
> The DNSO Secretariat holds the vote details.  The first
> Recommendation,
> [I.], is the preferred recommendation of the Task Force. The
> second
> recommendation [II] is presented to the Names Council, with the
> recommendation that both recommendations be approved, and sent to the
> Board,
> since it is the understanding of the Task Force that the Board
> requested
> advise and comment on the WLS from the Task Force.  The
> second
> recommendation notes that should the board approve the WLS request,
> that
> certain conditions should be established, and provides suggested
> conditions.
>
> The recommendations are presented here, as part of the final report.
> Both
> recommendations I and II have sub-elements. Each sub-element was voted
> on
> separately.  The Task Force is presenting the details of the vote
> rather
> than commenting individually on each outcome, letting the votes speak
> for
> themselves.
>
> Recommendations of the Transfer Task Force related to Verisign WLS:
> (Also
> attached as Appendix A in original form) Abbreviations are used in
> this
> section as follows:
>
> RGP: Redemption Grace
> Period              WLS: Wait Listing Service
>
> ----------------------------------
> I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
>
> A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> enforce
> the
> proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
> practice
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
>
> Accepted by all
>
> B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
> amend its
> agreement to
> enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> No: IP, gTLD
> 6 YES          2 NO
>
> C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
> WLS for
> 12 months.
> Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> No: gTLD
> Abstain: NonC, IP
> 5 YES           
> 1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
>
> I.  Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> No: IP, gTLD
> 6
> YES              2 NO
>
> II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
> prime
> recommendation.
>
> Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
> above
> and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
> month
> trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
> approved with
> conditions:
>
> A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
> and
> proven
> (for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and
> the
> establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> No:gTLD
> 7 YES 1 NO
>
> B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a
> standard
> deletion practise
> be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
> could be
> considered separately from WLS.
>
> (CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
>
> 1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
> WLS and
> implemented before WLS.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
> 5 YES
>
>
>
> 2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
> in
> place before
> WLS is implemented.
> Yes: IP, NonC
> 2 YES
>
> 3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> Yes: gTLD
> 1 YES
>
>
>
> C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
>
> C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> Registry
> (through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
> when a
> WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> Yes: GA, NonC,
> 2 YES
>
> C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> Abstain: gTLD,
> 5 YES         1 Abstain
>
> D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
> as to
> who has placed
> a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
> option.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> No: IP
> Abstain: gTLD
> 6
> YES         1
> NO       1 Abstain
>
> E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> considerations
> for
> approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> 5 YES        3 Abstain
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> III.  Report and Supporting Materials
>
> A.     Request to undertake comment/consensus on
> WLS, including Board
> request that the Task Force present a final report, taking into
> consideration the Board request that the Task Force take into
> account
> Verisign?s substantive modifications to their request for approval of
> the
> WLS.
>
> The Status Report regarding Deletions, Solutions and WLS, dated 4 June
> 2002,
> describes the request received by the TF. The ICANN Board referred
> this
> matter to the Transfer Task Force, via the Names Council, via
> Resolution
> [02.53]. The Names Council referred this matter to the TF on 24 June
> 2002.
> Via Resolution [02.55] the Board invited public comment and
> established a
> web forum for such comment.
>
> After extensive examination and dialogue related to the issue of WLS,
> the
> Task Force presented a preliminary preview of its findings, and
> draft
> recommendations at the ICANN Bucharest Names Council meeting. This
> presentation, and draft recommendations were further presented to the
> public
> during the Public Forum, on 27 June 02. During their presentation at
> the
> Public Forum, Verisign made certain substantive statements about
> possible
> modifications in their proposal. SnapNames and other supporters
> made
> extensive statements of support to the VS/SnapNames/WLS proposal.
> Both
> before and following the meeting?s Public Forum on WLS, ICANN?s web
> Comment
> Forum on WLS received comments, which are both opposing and supporting
> WLS.
> The ICANN forum documents just over 500 comments received.
>
> The Task Force took note of the possible substantive changes proposed
> by
> Verisign during the Public Comment period.  In addition, the
> Board asked the
> Task Force to include its views regarding these modifications proposed
> by
> Verisign. The TF requested verification of the modifications in the
> Verisign
> proposal to ICANN. E-mail from Chuck Gomes, Verisign Registry
> representative, dated Tuesday, 9 July 2002, verified the statement
> made in
> his presentation, but noted that the actual offer to ICANN had not
> been
> modified, pending determination that there was receptivity to such
> changes.
> The three changes were 1) implement of an interim grace period
> until
> official is implemented 2) no favored treatment of Snap Names holders
> 3)
> pricing to be simplified by removing rebates and charging one fixed
> price of
> $24 to registrars per subscription year.
>
> The TF met further to consider further ICANN Web Forum input, GA
> submissions, TF discussions and submissions to the TF itself via
> emails sent
> directly to the Chair, which were sent forward to the TF archives,
> Public
> Forum input, as well as these modifications to the VS WLS proposal.
> Taking
> into account this information, modifications were made to the TF
> recommendations to reflect the substantive changes, which Verisign
> noted it
> was willing to make in its request for approval. The Draft Final
> Report,
> presented in Bucharest to the Names Council and to the Public Forum,
> were
> revised, updated, and posted for an additional 8 day of comment, via
> the
> DNSO web site, with linkage from the ICANN site. Announcements were
> sent to
> all constituencies, the GA, and published by ICANN of this additional
> period
> of comment.
>
> Links are provided in a latter section to all substantive comments
> received.
>
> B.   Summary of the work of the Task Force, which
> describes:
>
> 1. Documentation of the extent of agreement and disagreement among
> impact
> parties:
>
> Comments received, including via the conference call outreach, and in
> the
> various Public Fora can be roughly grouped as follows:
>
> §         Responses from 
> registrars and others who presently offer services
> similar to WLS at the registrar level which are specific to the points
> and
> oppose WLS at the Verisign Registry Level
>
> §         Responses from
> SnapNames and Verisign, which are supportive of the
> WLS at the Verisign Registry Level,
>
> §         Responses from a
> group of entities who specifically support the
> SnapNames proposal and spoke in support of WLS.
>
> §         Responses from
> parties who object to the WLS proposal at the
> Verisign Registry level which include other constituencies and GA
> submissions
>
> §         Response from one
> constituency which was neutral on WLS but
> supported standard redemption grace period.
>
> §         Comments included
> negative comments about the costs of such
> services or about the increase in costs to users.
>
> §         Responses from
> parties who object to WLS at the Registry level,
> but appear to be focused on the involvement of Verisign the Registrar
> and
> negative experiences they have had related to transfers, deletions or
> other
> processes which are not related to WLS itself
>
> §         Two petitions
> (links provided in a later section) which are
> opposed to WLS at the Verisign Registry level.  Signatories are
> well
> identified in one petition; the second petition, which has over
> 3000
> signatures, is less documented.
>
> §         Responses
> contained in many of the above responses and in the
> constituency and GA submissions, which support the need for a
> uniform
> redemption process and a standard deletion process.
>
>    + The gTLD constituency provided a statement challenging
> the
>      ?jurisdiction? of the TF and explaining that
> the TF report ?delves into
>      matters that are beyond the scope of any
> policy task force, including,
>      1) whether a Registry Service can be
> introduced by a Registry Operator;
>      and (2) the price of a Registry Service. 
> It believes that such issues
>      are related to the business of the individual
> registry and are more*e
>      appropriate for the market place to regulate
> rather than the policy
>      making body of ICANN. Their comments are
> forwarded as Appendix B in
>      entirety.  Their comments were taken
> into account and discussed within
>      the TF several times; and consultation was
> taken from the ICANN
>      counsel.
>
> §         A very few other
> comments from individuals who responded
> questioned the ICANN consideration of approval of services at the
> registry
> level, and ICANN?s role in setting costs.
>
> 2. Documentation of Extent of Agreement and disagreement among
> affected
> parties:
>
> Areas of disagreement:
>
> The Task Force found that there are significant differences between
> the
> parties most directly affected by the introduction of this
> service-some
> registrars, and providers of competitive services similar to WLS at
> the
> registrar level who do not support the WLS at the Registry level,
> and
> SnapNames, Verisign, and a group of respondents who identify
> themselves as
> being able to benefit from the certainty of obtaining a WLS at the
> sole
> source level who support WLS at the Registry level.
>
> Again, the gTLD constituency and a few other commenters question
> whether the
> policy making supporting organization of ICANN should be reviewing
> this
> process via a DNSO TF or should be involved at all.
>
> Areas of Agreement:
>
> There is support in the community for both a uniform redemption grace
> period
> and the establishment of a standard deletions period.
>
> Note: Within the Task Force, specific to these two items,
> unanimous
> agreement within the Task Force exists for the need for a uniform
> redemption
> grace period.
>
> Agreement exists for a standard deletions period, although there
> was
> disagreement within the task force about the timing of such
> implementation.
> Five task force members supported the establishment of a standard
> deletions
> period at the same time as WLS and implemented before WLS. The
> remaining
> three support the need for a standard deletions period, but two
> support that
> it need not be in place before WLS is implemented, while one
> supports
> considering it separately.
>
> 3. Outreach undertaken/input received in various public for a
> (including a
> list of links where comments are achieved)
>
> This topic has been the topic of discussion on the GA for several
> months.
> After the formal referral to the Task Force, public forums were opened
> by
> ICANN and the Task Force held several ?open conference? calls to
> take
> further input to the Task Force. 
> The ICANN Board further held a public
> forum session at the Bucharest ICANN meetings where Verisign
> presented, the
> Task Force made a short statement of its recommendations and
> rationale, and
> attendees at the meeting made several comments.   The GA,
> BC, IPC, Registrar
> and Registry Constituencies have all submitted written comments, at
> various
> stages of the comment process. Verisign and SnapNames both
> submitted
> extensive documents, which addressed many of the questions raised on
> the
> comment forums.  The Final Recommendations of the Task Force were
> further
> posted for another 8 day public comment period.
>
> 4. Substantive Submissions to achieve adequate representation of
> those
> likely to be impacted
>
> Links are provided to the various public forums.   The Task
> Force notes that
> the submissions are available for review by any interested party.
>
> n      See appendix E for the list of
> links
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Statement on Nature and Intensity of reasoned support and
> opposition to
> the proposed policy recommendation
>
> The Task force identified bipolar views on the approval of the WLS at
> the
> Verisign Registry service.
>
> Strong support exists for the conditions of establishment of a
> standard
> redemption grace period, as described in the Recommendation II, and
> for the
> establishment of a standard deletions period.
>
> V.  PowerPoint Presentation Presented to the Names Council in
> Bucharest with
> draft recommendations and background and Status Report of the work of
> the
> Task Force
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020711.TFtransfer-WLS-update.ppt
>
> VI. Statements from Constituency/other entities  -- included as
> Appendix B
> and C
>
> ·        Registry Constituency
> Statement
>
> ·        IPC Statement
>
>
>
> VII. Action Requested:
>
> The Task Force forwards the Final Report with our final
> recommendations,
> supported by the vote of the Task Force members, to the Names Council
> for
> their discussion and vote and for transmittal to the Board, supported
> by the
> vote of the Names Council. The Final Report provides the
> documentation
> needed to support the recommendations of the Task Force
>
> We therefore recommend to the Names Council that the recommendations
> receive
> a supporting vote by the Names Council and be forwarded to the
> Board.
> Should any further clarification be needed, the Task Force is prepared
> to
> respond. Several members of the Task Force are Names Council
> members;
> however, the full Task Force stands ready to respond as needed to
> any
> questions.
>
> Appendices attached
>
> A: Recommendations of the Task Force with Voting Results
>
> B: Registry Constituency Statement
>
> C:  IPC Statement
>
> D. Task Force Membership
>
> E. Links to the Archives, Forums, submissions
>
> A   RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE
>
> The ballot, which follows, is the final ballot for the e-mail vote of
> the
> Transfer Task Force on the Task Force recommendations on the WLS.
>
> Recommendations were modified in a conference call meeting, July 22,
> 2002
> where all members of the Task Force were represented except for the
> GA.
>
> The Task Force representatives are asked to return their vote by
> private
> e-mail directly to:
> DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
>
> by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 2:00 pm (14:00) EST.
>
> The Task Force is presented with two recommendations. You are asked to
> vote
> on both and on each sub-element by putting [x] next to your
> choice.
>
> I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
>
> Please vote on this:
>
> A. The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> enforce the
> proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
> practice
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement
> to
> enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
> months.
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> I. Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> II. Recommendation:
> Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
> above
> and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
> month
> trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
> approved with
> conditions:
>
> Please vote on this.
>
> A. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
> proven
> (for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and
> the
> establishment of a standard deletion practice.
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> B. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion
> practice
> be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
> could be
> considered separately from WLS.
>
> VOTE ON ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE:
>
> 1) Standard Deletion practice should be established at same time as
> WLS and
> implemented before WLS.
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> 2) Standard deletion practice should be established, but need not be
> in
> place before
> WLS is implemented.
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> 3) Standard deletion practice should be considered separately.
> Yes
> NO
> Abstain
>
> TWO OPTIONS ARE PRESENTED, for C, C. 1 and C. 2  BUT ONLY VOTE
> FOR ONE
>
> C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> Registry
> (through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
> when a
> WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
>
>                                                   OR
>
> C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> D. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has
> placed
> a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
> option.
> {Transparency}
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
>
> E. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations
> for
> approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> Yes
> No
> Abstain
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Please fill in the following information:
> NAME:
>
> Please identify name of Constituency or GA:
>
> Return your ballot by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 2:00 pm EST (14:00
> EST)
> to:
> DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
>
>
>
> TRANSFER TASK FORCE VOTING RESULTS
>
>
>
> . Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
>
> A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> enforce
> the
> proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
> practice
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> Accepted by all
>
> B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
> amend its
> agreement to
> enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> No: IP, gTLD
> 6 YES          2 NO
>
> C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
> WLS for
> 12 months.
> Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> No: gTLD
> Abstain: NonC, IP
> 5 YES           
> 1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
>
> I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> No: IP, gTLD
> 6
> YES              2 NO
>
> II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
> prime
> recommendation.
>
> Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
> above
> and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
> month
> trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
> approved with
> conditions:
>
> A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
> and
> proven
> (for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and
> the
> establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> No:gTLD
> 7 YES 1 NO
>
> B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a
> standard
> deletion practise
> be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
> could be
> considered separately from WLS.
>
>  of a domain name when a
> WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> Yes: GA, NonC, (CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
>
> 1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
> WLS and
> implemented before WLS.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
> 5 YES
>
> 2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
> in
> place before
> WLS is implemented.
> Yes: IP, NonC
> 2 YES
>
> 3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> Yes: gTLD
> 1 YES
>
> C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
>
> C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> Registry
> (through the registrar) to the existing registrant
> 2 YES
>
> C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> Abstain: gTLD,
> 5 YES         1 Abstain
>
> D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
> as to
> who has placed
> a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
> option.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> No: IP
> Abstain: gTLD
> 6 YES         1
> NO       1 Abstain
>
> E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> considerations
> for
> approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> 5 YES        3 Abstain
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Appendix B:  Registry Constituency Statement:
>
> gTLD Statement (Revised).
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Appendix C:  IPC Statement on the Proposed Transfer Task
> Force
> Recommendations on WLS
>
>
>
> THE PROBLEM:
>
>
>
> The IPC strongly believes that the matter of  unintentional
> deletions is a
> problem that does not distinguish among particular registries,
> registrars or
> registrants.  While some inadvertent deletions occur because of
> registrant
> failure to renew, too many are due to registry or registrar error
> or
> misconduct.   It is an industry-wide concern, one that
> rightly should be
> addressed at the ICANN-level as a matter of policy, and whose
> solution
> should be applicable across the spectrum of gTLD registrars and
> registries.
>
>
>
> Names associated with intellectual property rights are
> particularly
> attractive to theft by hijackers and speculators who have been known
> to
> modify information to make it appear as though a request for deletion
> of the
> domain name has been made by the registrar.  A piecemeal solution
> of
> individual business models, such as the proposed WLS, does not by
> itself
> address the concerns of intellectual property owners, who, like ICANN,
> are
> particularly troubled about the effects of accidental deletions on
> consumers
> and businesses that are increasingly relying on the Internet to
> service
> their commercial needs.
>
>
>
> TR-TF RECOMMENDATIONS:
>
>
>
> After reviewing the proposed recommendations posted by the Transfer
> Task
> Force, the IPC has the following comments:
>
>
>
> Since it appears that the TF cannot reach consensus regarding the
> proposed
> WLS, the TF should present the Board with a summary of the divergent
> views.
> The IPC does not support presenting an alternative recommendation
> regarding
> WLS to the Board.  It is the IPC?s position that the Task Force
> is charged
> with providing, if possible, a clear consensus position on the WLS
> proposal
> to the Board.  If no consensus has developed, the Task Force is
> duty bound
> to advise the Board of the lack of consensus and provide the Board
> with a
> summary of the various divergent viewpoints on the issues. 
> Accordingly, the
> IPC urges the Transfers Task Force to consider adopting a single
> clear
> recommendation to the Board.   We turn now to our specific
> comments
> regarding the Task Forces Recommendations.
>
>
>
> THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY:
>
>
>
> The IPC agrees with the Task Force recommendation that the
> proposed
> redemption grace period is thus far the best and most practical
> insurance
> policy yet derived to handle these and similar problems.  The IPC
> strongly
> urges that implementation of the Redemption Grace Period must precede
> any
> implementation taken on WLS.  Provided this condition precedent
> is met, the
> IPC does not object to the proposed WLS.
>
>
>
> The IPC notes that a representative of Verisign Global Registry
> (?VGRS?)
> presented amendments to its WLS proposal during its presentation to
> the
> ICANN Board at the recent ICANN meeting in Bucharest. 
> Specifically, the
> VGRS representative stated that VGRS would implement an ?interim?
> Redemption
> Grace Period (?RGP?) for .net and .com until such time as fully-tested
> RGP
> is implemented across all registries. 
> At present, the IPC has no further
> details on the VGRS amended proposal.  Nevertheless, the IPC
> believes that
> any RGP implemented by VGRS on an interim basis would have to be
> the
> functional and operational equivalent of the RGP proposed by ICANN
> staff in
> order to satisfy the condition precedent set forth in the
> preceding
> paragraph.  To this end, the IPC supports the Task Force?s
> recommendation
> with regard to the requirement of a fully functional RGP and cannot
> comment
> on the feasibility of the interim RGP proposed by VGRS.
>
>
>
> NOTICE AND TRANSPARENCY:
>
>
>
> The IPC disagrees with the Transfer Task Force recommendations on
> notice and
> transparency.  To make public or to disclose to the registrant
> the identity
> of the WLS subscriber would provide an incentive for a bad-faith
> registrant
> to continue renewing a registration.   The interest in
> notice and
> transparency can be fully met through the requirement that registrars
> verify
> previously submitted contact data of a WLS subscriber before
> effectuating
> the transfer of a registration to that subscriber (at which point the
> WLS
> subscriber contact data will appear in WHOIS).
>
>
>
> PRICING:
>
>
>
> With regard to the issue of pricing, the IPC again notes that a
> representative of VGRS stated that the WLS proposal was being amended
> to
> revise the pricing model in the WLS proposal.  Specifically, the
> VGRS
> representative stated that the pricing model set forth in its WLS
> proposal
> would be revised to remove the rebate structure originally put forward
> in
> its proposal and that VGRS would charge all registrars a consistent
> flat
> $24.00 fee per subscription.  The IPC would like to note its
> appreciation
> for the continued willingness of VGRS to revisit its WLS proposal
> based on
> community input.    While taking no specific position
> on pricing, the IPC
> believes that the pricing for WLS should be structured in order to
> discourage gaming of the WLS by domain name speculators and
> cybersquatters.
>
>
>
> The IPC wishes to point out that the position set out above is
> without
> prejudice to the need for a uniform transfers and deletion policy,
> but
> reflects the views we would like communicated to the Task Force by its
> July
> 22, 2002 deadline (since we know a uniform policy cannot be completed
> by
> then).
>
> Appendix D. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
>
>
>
>  ?ccTLD - Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>Alternate
> "ccTLD - Rick Shera" <rjs@lojo.co.nz>
> "ISP - Tony Holmes" <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>
> Alternate
> "ISP - Mark McFadden" <mcf@uwm.edu>
> "IPC - Nick Wood" <nick.wood@nom-iq.com> 
> Resigned July,2002-to be replaced
> "BC - Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com> Chair
> "BC - Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>
> "Registrars - Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> "gTLD - Christine Russo" <crusso@verisign.com>
> "GA - Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> "David Safran" <dsafran@nixonpeabody.com>
> "NonCom - James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> "NonCom - Erick Iriarte" <faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe>
> "Sloan Gaon" <sgaon@registrypro.com>
> "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
> replacing Sloan Goan, effective
> July,2002
>
> Secretarial assistance:
> "BC Transfer Help - Marie Juliano" <mjuliano@att.com
>
> "DNSO.Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
>
> Appendix E:  LINKS to SUPPORTING MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
> SUBMISSIONS on WLS
>
> Redemption Grace period - 14 February 2002, ICANN staff posted a
> proposal to
> establish a RGP
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
> Technical steering group's Implementation proposal
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm
> RGP presented at ACCRA - summary of
> comments
> http://www.icann.org/accra/redemption-topic.htm
>
> VGRS's current proposal grows out of a WLS proposal that it sent to
> the DNSO
> Registrars Constituency on 30 December 2001.
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf
> After comments from that constituency and others, VGRS revised its
> proposal
> on 28 January.
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-28jan02.pdf
>  After additional discussions with registrars and others, VGRS
> revised the
> proposal a second time and submitted it with the 21 March 2002 request
> for
> amendment to Appendix G.
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf
> Whereas, on 21 March 2002 VeriSign, Inc., the operator of the .com and
> .net
> registries, requested amendments to the registry agreements for
> those
> top-level domains to allow it to conduct a twelve-month trial of a
> proposed
> wait-listing service (WLS) to be offered through accredited registrars
> for
> an annual fee;
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#02.53
> Whereas, in resolution 02.53 the Board requested the Names Council
> to
> coordinate within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning
> the
> deletion of domain names and possible solutions for those issues and
> to
> submit to the Board a status report on that review, with the status
> report
> to include any recommendations concerning VeriSign's request to modify
> the
> .com and .net agreements to allow it to provide the WLS;
> Whereas, the DNSO's Transfers Task Force presented to the Board a
> status
> report giving preliminary findings and recommendations on WLS, but
> requiring
> additional analysis and discussion within the DNSO before the report
> is
> finalized;
> DNSO Status report
> Local copy:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020604.NCTransferTF-report.html
> ICANN reference :
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/dnso-deletes-report-10jun02.htm
> Whereas, as contemplated by resolution 02.55 ICANN has received
> various
> public comments on the WLS on a web-based public comment forum;
> ICANN public forum comments
> http://forum.icann.org/wls/
> Whereas, a Public Forum was held on 27 June 2002 at ICANN's meetings
> in
> Bucharest,
>
> Preliminary report ICANN meetings in Bucharest
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm
>
> Verisign WLS proposal presented at Bucharest public forum
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm
> during which VeriSign gave a presentation of the WLS in which it
> constructively proposed changes to accommodate concerns expressed
> in
> community comments; the DNSO Transfers Task Force summarized its
> preliminary
> findings and recommendations; and several members of the Internet
> community
> gave their views on WLS;
>
> Transfer Task Force pp presentation Bucharest
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-TransferTF-final.ppt
>
> Overview of WLS presented by Grant Forsyth in Bucharest
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-VRSN-proposed-WLS.ppt
> Whereas, the Board, although very anxious to ensure that action on
> VeriSign's request proceeds without unnecessary delay, believes that
> its
> consideration of the request would be assisted by receiving the final
> report
> of the DNSO's bottom-up consensus-development effort, including its
> views on
> the modifications recently proposed by VeriSign;
> Resolved [02.84] that the Names Council is requested to provide, no
> later
> than 26 July 2002, its final recommendations, with its supporting
> rationale
> and any separate positions of DNSO
> constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS
> request (including the modifications made on 27 June 2002), so that
> the
> Board may act shortly thereafter.
>
> INPUT
>
> Transfer TF deletions, solutions, and WLS draft updated for the
> Names
> Council meeting July 11, 2002
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/WLS-pres-Bucharest-update-nc.ppt
>
> Public comments were open on the final report until July 22, 2002
> Final report :
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html
>
> The comments are found in:
> Archives: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-deletes/Arc01/
>
> A link was put on the ICANN web site during the Public comment
> period
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jul02.htm
>
> Full archives of the Transfer Task Force  are to be found in:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ NC Transfer
> (open 29 Oct
> 2001)
> gTLD Statement (Revised).
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html
>
> Two petitions were received:
> 1. http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html
> This petition is mention in the public forum at
> http://forum.icann.org/wls/
>
> 2. Presented to the Board in Bucharest on behalf of Magi Inc. at
> http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/magi-petition.doc

--

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.org