FW: [nc-transfer] RE: Proposal to Proceed

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:08 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: FW: [nc-transfer] RE: Proposal to Proceed
Importance: High


Marilyn,

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to provide feedback. My comments
are inserted in the text of Grant's proposed text below.  Please feel free
to distribute my comments to the task force.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:grant.forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:31 PM
To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; Transfer TF
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] The grave concern by existing registrants that they may lose
their currently registered domain name is not impacted one way or another by
the introduction of the WLS.  That concern is the same with or without the
WLS until ICANN implements a redemption period; the process for doing that
is underway.  We originally included a redemption period in the WLS proposal
but Louis asked us to take it out so that it could be treated separately.
We communicated months ago that we would be willing to consider implementing
an interim procedure to deal with this concern until the redemption period
is initiated.
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] I don't have a clue what is ill defined with regard to
deletions.  It is very clearly defined from the registry point of view.
Moreover, the current practice with regard to deletions is fairly and
uniformly enforced for all registrars by VGRS.  It would be accurate to say
that registrars have built various business models for the purposes of
grabbing deleted names.  Those business models are essentially the cause of
the whole deleted names issue coming up in the first place.
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] As far as we can tell, most of these competing services, if
not all, cater to speculator registrants.  Even SnapNames admits that about
half of their SnapBacks are probably from speculators.  It would be very
interesting to know what percentage of customers are speculators for the
other competing business models.  It would also be very interesting to find
out how many non-speculator registrants are involved in the competing
business models.  I have never been one that believes that speculation is
necessarily wrong, but I am one who believes that an average, non-speculator
registrant should have as good a chance at getting a name as a speculator
registrant.  That definitely is not the case today.  Under the WLS, this
would be improved significantly.  If my assessment is correct, is it fair to
conclude that the members of the transfer task force are more concerned
about speculator interests than those of non-speculator registrants?  At a
bare minimum, I would think that the task force would try to validate who
the prospective registrants are for the competing services.
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] Would they exit the market because consumers now have a
better option?  If so, is that bad?  If the WLS would seriously damage these
other businesses, why wouldn't they participate in the WLS to make up the
difference?  It would be open to all registrars on equal terms.
 
5. There has been no evidence provided suggesting that there are any
technical issues that would prohibit the existing services from continuing
to operate

[Gomes, Chuck] If I understand what is meant here, then this is a correct
statement.  If the WLS is implemented, there would be no technical reasons
why other competing services would be prohibited. 
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] Who are you referring to when you say 'consumer?'  If
'consumer' means the average, non-speculator registrant, it is easy to see
that they would be very frustrated by the status quo because they hardly
have any chance at all when competing against the speculators who have
elaborate systems in place to capture deleted names.  As I noted earlier,
the Redemption Grace Period would provide relief for inadvertent deletions
and we would be willing to consider implementing an interim procedure within
the WLS to cover this concern until a redemption period is implemented via
the ICANN process.
  
2. There is no added legitimate consumer benefit achieved from the
introduction of the WLS.

[Gomes, Chuck] This is blatantly false unless of course 'consumer' is
defined as speculator.  Speculators are definitely better off with the
status quo.  But as already noted, under the WLS, the average,
non-speculator consumer who wants an already registered name would have a
better chance at getting it at a more reasonable price without having to buy
it from a speculator.  Of course, my argument falls apart if the WLS is
priced too low.  If it is priced too low, it will be easy for speculators to
switch their operations from the current process to the WLS.  Again, it
appears that members of the transfer task force want to incent the
speculator business.  That is their prerogative, but I think it is deceptive
to make it sound like you're concerned about the average, non-speculator
consumer.
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] I would love to see this documented with some facts.  It
cannot be and those who are using the argument undoubtedly know this.  But
it makes for a great emotional attack even if it is totally unsubstantiated.
I would suggest at a minimum that the task force ask ICANN whether it has
any evidence that this is a problem.  The bottom line is this: a back-order
service at the registry level offers consumers a 100% fulfillment if a name
is deleted; a back-order service at the registrar level cannot do that.  At
the same time, the centralized service (WLS) would be offered on a
first-come, first-served basis, thereby giving all consumers equal
opportunity.  Moreover, fully open competition would be available at the
registrar level just like with domain name registrations. 
 
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

[Gomes, Chuck] This is a good recommendation.  Even before ICANN publicly
proposed this, I worked closely with Louis to explore the possibility of
implementing for .com, net and .org.
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] If the above two recommendations are based on the reasoning
in this document that has absolutely no documented, objective data as its
foundation, then the transfers task force has provided the community with
live evidence that the DNSO processes are horribly flawed.  I would like to
think that ICANN staff can recognize a politically motivated action from one
that is objectively based.
 
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

[Gomes, Chuck] As I said above, VGRS offered months ago to consider
implementing an interim procedure in the WLS to deal with this concern if
the WLS is implemented before a redemption period is in place.
 
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).

[Gomes, Chuck] This would play right into the hands of the speculators, so
if that is your objective, I understand it.  Speculators could easily
continue what they are doing today with little or no cost impact.  It would
be naive to conclude that speculators would not play the game at a higher
price, but today they can do so at an extremely low price.  If they had to
invest more, it would be less profitable for them and more beneficial for a
regular consumer.
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck] Why needlessly worry registrants?   Most of them would not
understand what was going on and of course could easily be needlessly
frightened.  The redemption period and/or interim redemption period would
adequately solve this problem without adding confusion to registrants.
Besides, this is primarily a registrar issue, not a registry issue.  If this
is a good recommendation and considering that the charter given to the
transfers task force has to do with deleted names in general, then this
recommendation should be extended to include all of the business models
involving the deleted names model today; they all should provide such
notice. 
 
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.

[Gomes, Chuck]   The IP Constituency leadership actually opposes this kind
of idea. Here is an exact quote of the message I received from Steve
Metalitz, IPC President, on January 18, 2002: "Disclosure of WLS
subscribers:    If the identity of WLS subscribers is made public or is
disclosed to the registrant of the domain name in question, the potential
value of the WLS for intellectual property owners would be substantially
diminished.  For example, a bad-faith registrant would have an incentive to
continue renewing the registration if it knew that the owner of a trademark
identical to that domain name was the wait list subscriber for it and would
receive it automatically if the registration expired.  (Indeed, there is
some concern that even disclosing the fact that a wait list subscription
exists would create this perverse incentive.)    The December 30 paper is
unclear on whether registrars would be allowed or required to make such
disclosures.  Please clarify whether VGRS would prohibit such disclosures as
part of the WLS." 
 
{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

-----Original Message-----
From: Russo, Christine 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:50 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: FW: [nc-transfer] RE: Proposal to Proceed


Here is Marilyn's email inviting your comment.

Christine

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz
Cc: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-transfer] RE: Proposal to Proceed


I've read Grant Forsyth's document and it basically captures most of what
I had intended to summarize. I greatly appreciate it when TF members do this
kind of very useful drafting.  Ross also volunteered to do some more
drafting on
the transfer work area, and I wanted to say thanks for that, as well.

So, on deletions/WLS, and working from Grant's document, I plan to post
something later tonight
or tomorrow to the TR-TF.... comment needed, and welcomed.

This is intended for all members of the TF-- please post any comments based
on the 
present work effort which you haven't posted so far, both on AA and on
deletes/WLS.

We have submissions from BC, IPC, and GA... as well as Registrars... and
several
individual submissions following our outreach calls, including Elisabeth
posting as 
an individual. [thanks, Elisabeth].    Let me know if your constituency
submitted 
something and I failed to note it here... ...

And, if you've posted in the long ago past with input, or edits, it would be

very helpful if you invested the time of looking at your constituency's
input 
and noting how and what their views are
in terms of the present work efforts that are published.  

Of course, in the TF, you are representing constituencies/GA, not individual
companies...We all 
understand and expect that "vetting" will be work in progress and that 
you will need to respond in this particular round of comments and input,
based on your best information from your constituency/GA. 

If there is a need for an individual company to post purely for factual
input, 
such as Verisign Registry, Christine, please have Chuck Gomes do that and 
That way we can ensure that you can continue to wear the hat of representing
the constituency's larger viewpoint, along with Sloan.  

I am making an exception for VS Registry due to the fact that 
we are considering VS WLS as part of the deletions discussion and there may
be 
points of fact which VS Registry wishes to clarify.  

Thanks, Grant, for undertaking the drafting. Much appreciated. 
And Ross, for your offer of help on the work on AA/EA.  Marilyn
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:08 PM
To: grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: Proposal to Proceed


Grant,

I wanted to pass on for inclusion in the formal record that, after further
consideration, your proposal to proceed concerning the WLS and deletes makes
eminent sense and has my support.

My apologies for dragging the call into that rat hole, but having joined a
few minutes late, I didn't have the benefit of fully understanding the
nuances of the background discussion that led to your comments. I might even
go as far as noting that we likely have consensus on this issue within the
TF and should be able to proceed as you described without further delay.

Thanks again,

-rwr