[nc-transfer] Re: [ga] WLS

[James Love <james.love@cptech.org>]

Joe Sims wrote:
> I have been following the discussions on this subject, and must confess 
> that I still am confused about exactly what this (and the many other 
> similar statements that have appeared from others) really mean.  Could 
> someone explain to me precisely how the WLS would harm consumers and/or 
> registrars?  

     Joe, I represent the NCC on the Transfers task force.  These are my 
policy concerns:

1.  I don't think existing domain holders should have to pay extra to get on 
a WLS, so they don't lose a domain by mistakes.

2.   I don't think the system should enhance the likihood that the domain is 
transfered by mistake, or create incentives by any party to make transfers 
occur that should not have happened.

3.     I think that during a reasonable period when an expired domain is 
available for others, the original domain holders should be able to get it 
back, and it would be best if there were incentives for that period to be 
contacted, for example, by persons who wanted to buy the domain.

4.    If there is some value in the expired domain, I would prefer a system 
where the previous owner of the domain benefited, rather than a registrar 
type service, in part to reduce the incentives to have a domain expired by a 
non-mistake mistake.

5.     I think ICANN should be concerned about competition issues.  You are 
an antitrust lawyer.  It should be obvious that Verisign has a dominant 
position in the gTLD registrations, and it should be obvious also that 
Verisign has continually abused its monopoly position.  It took us several 
months to transfer out domains from Verisign to a competitor who charged 1/3 
the price, because Versign made it very difficult.

6. 	The recent "expiration department" fiasco seemed a lot like a criminal 
fraud to me.  How could you look at what what Versigin did there, and then 
recommend that they run an expiration service?  Representing domain name 
holders, this seems (to me) to send exactly the wrong signal.    You would 
be rewarding a firm that was actively defrauding domain holders over the 
expiration issue.

7.    Why not have all the competitive registrars run an expiration service 
as a open access coop, with rules that favor the existing domain holders 
(ability to reclaim the domain during 30 day period when domain is on the 
list), *and* which avoids the speed dial system?

8.  Is there any evidence that Versigin's ability to discharge its 
contractual obligations with ICANN can't be met without extending its 
monopoly control over .com and .net domains?

   Jamie


>I understand, I think, the point that this would be a new 
> service that provides revenue for VeriSign (assuming, of course, that 
> someone actually buys it), and I understand that having more revenue 
> will give VeriSign more resources, and more resources will give it more 
> financial ammunition with which to compete with its competitors, 
> including other registrars.  And I understand that, because this 
> reservation service (and only this service, given the fact that there is 
> only one .com registry) will be able to offer more certainty than other 
> competing reservation services, it may have a competitive advantage over 
> those competing products, which some people think is unfair.  But I get 
> the impression that at least some people believe that there is more to 
> the competitive concern than these point?  If that is right, could 
> someone lay it out for me simply and clearly, so that even I can 
> understand it?  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains 
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the 
> attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public 
> information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated 
> recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, 
> please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it 
> from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of 
> this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
> 
> 
> -- This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list. Send mail to 
> majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the 
> message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040