ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-transfer]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations


Marilyn
Having noted on the last Transfers call that the Task Force should draft a policy recommendation on the subject such that this can be taken back into our constituencies for a quick turn around in order to get something able to be communicated to the NC at Bucharest, then I  thought I  should start the ball rolling.
I have now posted this to the whole TF and invite you and others to work on refining the wording such it can be taken to properly represent the TF position. 
 
Here is my draft policy statement for the Transfer TF on WLS
 
Whereas Verisign has proposed to introduce a new registry service  - the Wait List Service (WLS) - and requested  from ICANN a change to its registry agreement to enable this, and
Whereas the WLS policy has been extensively posted and commented on, and
Whereas the ICANN Board on the 22 April 2002 adopted a resolution "inviting community comment on the [Verisign WLS] request, and particularly on policy concerns raised by the request that would harm the legitimate interests of others."
 
The Names Council Transfers Taskforce provides the following comments.
We observe that:
1. There is both legitimate  frustration felt by prospective registrants in securing a currently registered gTLD domain name when its registration lapses and grave concern by existing registrants that they may loose their currently registered gTLD domain name should its registration unintentionally lapse.
2. At the core of this frustration and concern is an ill defined and poorly enforced deletions policy and practice between the ICANN accredited registrars, their agents and their registry.
 
3. There exists today a range of competing services that provide the function of seeking out specific expiring gTLD domain names for registration by prospective registrants.
4. The WLS service would essentially render the existing services superfluous and we would expect them to exit the market. Even a 12 month trial of the WLS (noting that a 12 month trial would have a 24 month effect as a WLS option is for 12 months), as proposed by Verisign, could be expected to result in the current services exiting the market.
5. There has been no evidence provided suggesting that there are any technical issues that would prohibit the existing services from continuing to operate
 
From the above we would note that:
1. Current consumer frustration and concern over legitimately acquiring an expiring gTLD domain name can and should be addressed through the swift introduction and effective enforcement of the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice.
2. There is no added legitimate consumer benefit achieved from the introduction of the WLS.
3. Consumer interests are likely to be harmed through the reduction in competition and possibility of discriminatory behaviour between the vertically integrated registrar and registry businesses of Verisign as a result of the monopolisation of the key registry function as a result of the introduction of the WLS.
 
Based on the above observations we make the following policy recommendations that:
1. The ICANN Board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
2. The ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request to amend its agreement to enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
3. The ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
 
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 further recommend that:
4. The introduction of the WLS be dependent on the implementation and proven (for not less than 3 months) practice envisaged in the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
5. The price for the WLS be set at the same amount as the current registry fee for a registration - the cost of the WLS function being no more, and probably less than a registration (given that the activity is less complicated).
6. 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.
7. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has placed a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that action the option.
{Marilyn, you could add a couple more if you wanted to. Do we need to do this or do we want to leave it at the first 3 policy recommendations?}
 
Grant Forsyth
BC Rep on the Transfers Task Force


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>