[nc-transfer] BulkRegister response to motion

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

The first comment as previously mentioned. Also noted.

Thanks,

-rwr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom D'Alleva" <tdalleva@bulkregister.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations


> The point that is missed in the TF recommendations is that WLS will level
> the playing field for consummer access to deleted names which is not in
the
> best interest of most registrars because speculators represent much
greater
> volume and revenue potential.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 6:12 PM
> > To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> > Subject: [registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations
> >
> >
> > If you have any input on the following draft recommendation regarding
WLS,
> > please drop me a note. If required, I will be reconciling the
> > input with the
> > Constituency ExComm.
> >
> > I will be preparing a response later tomorrow that takes into account
the
> > current consensus of the constituency as I understand it (and
> > including the
> > substantive feedback that I receive from the constituency between now
and
> > then).
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
> > To: "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'" <mcade@att.com>; "Transfer TF"
> > <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:31 PM
> > Subject: [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
> > >
> > >
> >
>