<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Re: NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLSpresented to the ICANN Board
Thank you, Harold, for the constructive suggestion. I am sure the
Board will give the report and recommendation very careful
consideration and indicate how it makes use of the report as part of
its final decision.
Stuart
At 10:16 AM -0400 7/29/02, Harold J. Feld wrote:
>It would be most beneficial for the NC to understand how the Board
>utilizes this report in its considerations, and how the NC can
>continue to refine this process in the future. In particular, I
>believe the Board should address the scope of authority issues
>raised by the gTLD consticuency.
>
>I will add that I beleive the Task Force and the NC acted properly
>based on the instructions given, but there is always room for
>refinement of the process.
>
>Harold Feld
>
>M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>
>>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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
><mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>Alternate>
>"ccTLD - Rick Shera" <rjs@lojo.co.nz <mailto:rjs@lojo.co.nz>>
>"ISP - Tony Holmes" <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com
><mailto:tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>> Alternate
>"ISP - Mark McFadden" <mcf@uwm.edu <mailto:mcf@uwm.edu>>
>"IPC - Nick Wood" <nick.wood@nom-iq.com
>>><mailto:nick.wood@nom-iq.com>> Resigned July,2002-to be replaced
>>"BC - Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com <mailto:mcade@att.com>> Chair
>>"BC - Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz
><mailto:grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>>
>"Registrars - Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com <mailto:ross@tucows.com>>
>"gTLD - Christine Russo" <crusso@verisign.com <mailto:crusso@verisign.com>>
>"GA - Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca <mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca>>
>"David Safran" <dsafran@nixonpeabody.com <mailto:dsafran@nixonpeabody.com>>
>"NonCom - James Love" <james.love@cptech.org <mailto:james.love@cptech.org>>
>"NonCom - Erick Iriarte" <faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe
><mailto:faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe>>
>"Sloan Gaon" <sgaon@registrypro.com <mailto:sgaon@registrypro.com>>
>"Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us
><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> replacing Sloan Goan, effective
>July,2002
>
>Secretarial assistance:
>"BC Transfer Help - Marie Juliano" <mjuliano@att.com <mailto:mjuliano@att.com>
>
>"DNSO.Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
><mailto: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
><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
><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
--
__________________
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|