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