<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-transfer] Re: NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLS presented to theICANN Board
Title: Re: NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLS
present
Thank you, Phillip. It is helpful to have the complete report. I
appreciate all of the hard work that has gone into this
consideration.
Stuart
At 2:33 PM +0200 7/29/02, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Vint and
Stuart,
further to the Board
request please find below the NC report on the WLS. The report
can also be found at the following URL:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/NCFinal-report-WLS.html
Philip
Sheppard
Names Council
Chair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Report of the Transfer Task Force on the WLS Proposal Presented
to
the DNSO Names Council
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
Submitted by Marilyn Cade, Chair
On behalf of the Transfer Task Force
The Final Report of the Transfer Task on the Verisign WLS proposal
is
forwarded to the Names Council for discussion and vote. The
Final Report
includes the following information and elements:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background on Recommendations and Recommendations
III. Report and Supporting Materials
A. Request to undertake comment/consensus on
WLS, including Board
request that the TF present a final report, taking into
consideration
Verisign?s agreement to provide substantive modifications in their
request
for approval for the WLS service
B. Summary of the Work of the TF which
describes
1. Documentation on extent of agreement
and disagreement among impacted
parties
2. Outreach undertaken/input received in
various public fora (including
links to
3. All substantive submissions to
achieve adequate representation of
those likely to be impacted
4. Statement on nature and intensity of
reasoned support and opposition
to the proposed policy recommendation
IV. Additional materials from Task Force: Link to
PowerPoint Presentation
presented to DNSO Names Council, which offers a summary to the
community,
including the draft recommendations of the TF
V. Separate statements from
constituencies
VI. Action Requested
VII.
Appendices
I. Executive Summary:
The Transfer Task Force (Task Force or TF) was requested to consider
and
provide comments on the introduction of a wait listing service,
based on
technology/services provided by SnapNames and provided by the
Verisign
Registry. Following Bucharest, the Task Force based its
discussions and
considerations on the WLS as proposed to ICANN in March,
modified by the
three changes offered by Verisign, in Bucharest. Extensive discussions
and
outreach efforts were undertaken by the Task Force; including
presentations
by both SnapNames and Verisign. Extensive outreach was undertaken
via
various public fora; conference calls which were open to interested
parties
to provide input to the Task Force.
Efforts were made to document the range
of comments and input received; task
force members read the submissions via
the various fora and reviewed the
petitions posted, as well studying the
extensive submissions of SnapNames providing clarification,
explanation, and
their views. The Task Force developed and published two
recommendations -
one preferred recommendation, which recommends denying the WLS
service, and
an alternate recommendation which describes those conditions which the
Task
Force recommends, should the Board approve the WLS service.
The recommendations are forwarded to the Names Council for their
discussion
and approval at their meeting on July 24, 2002. The Task Force asks
that
their recommendations be voted on, affirmatively, and forwarded to
the
Board. The Task Force is available to respond to further
questions and
issues that the Council might have in order to support the Names
Council
providing a final report to the Board by July 26, 2002, based on the
Task
Force final report.
II. Background on Recommendations and Recommendations
The Task Force developed and presented two recommendations.
The vote for
both Recommendations is a matter of record, and is attached in
Appendix A.
The DNSO Secretariat holds the vote details. The first
Recommendation,
[I.], is the preferred recommendation of the Task Force. The
second
recommendation [II] is presented to the Names Council, with the
recommendation that both recommendations be approved, and sent to the
Board,
since it is the understanding of the Task Force that the Board
requested
advise and comment on the WLS from the Task Force. The
second
recommendation notes that should the board approve the WLS request,
that
certain conditions should be established, and provides suggested
conditions.
The recommendations are presented here, as part of the final report.
Both
recommendations I and II have sub-elements. Each sub-element was voted
on
separately. The Task Force is presenting the details of the vote
rather
than commenting individually on each outcome, letting the votes speak
for
themselves.
Recommendations of the Transfer Task Force related to Verisign WLS:
(Also
attached as Appendix A in original form) Abbreviations are used in
this
section as follows:
RGP: Redemption Grace
Period WLS: Wait Listing Service
----------------------------------
I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
enforce
the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
practice
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
Accepted by all
B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
amend its
agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6 YES 2 NO
C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
WLS for
12 months.
Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
No: gTLD
Abstain: NonC, IP
5 YES
1 NO 2 ABSTENTIONS
I. Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6
YES 2 NO
II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
prime
recommendation.
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 alternatively recommend that WLS be
approved with
conditions:
A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
and
proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and
the
establishment of a standard deletion practise.
Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
No:gTLD
7 YES 1 NO
B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a
standard
deletion practise
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
could be
considered separately from WLS.
(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
5 YES
2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes: IP, NonC
2 YES
3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes: gTLD
1 YES
C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
C. 1. 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.
Yes: GA, NonC,
2 YES
C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
Abstain: gTLD,
5 YES 1 Abstain
D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
as to
who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
option.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP
Abstain: gTLD
6
YES 1
NO 1 Abstain
E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
considerations
for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
5 YES 3 Abstain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Report and Supporting Materials
A. Request to undertake comment/consensus on
WLS, including Board
request that the Task Force present a final report, taking into
consideration the Board request that the Task Force take into
account
Verisign?s substantive modifications to their request for approval of
the
WLS.
The Status Report regarding Deletions, Solutions and WLS, dated 4 June
2002,
describes the request received by the TF. The ICANN Board referred
this
matter to the Transfer Task Force, via the Names Council, via
Resolution
[02.53]. The Names Council referred this matter to the TF on 24 June
2002.
Via Resolution [02.55] the Board invited public comment and
established a
web forum for such comment.
After extensive examination and dialogue related to the issue of WLS,
the
Task Force presented a preliminary preview of its findings, and
draft
recommendations at the ICANN Bucharest Names Council meeting. This
presentation, and draft recommendations were further presented to the
public
during the Public Forum, on 27 June 02. During their presentation at
the
Public Forum, Verisign made certain substantive statements about
possible
modifications in their proposal. SnapNames and other supporters
made
extensive statements of support to the VS/SnapNames/WLS proposal.
Both
before and following the meeting?s Public Forum on WLS, ICANN?s web
Comment
Forum on WLS received comments, which are both opposing and supporting
WLS.
The ICANN forum documents just over 500 comments received.
The Task Force took note of the possible substantive changes proposed
by
Verisign during the Public Comment period. In addition, the
Board asked the
Task Force to include its views regarding these modifications proposed
by
Verisign. The TF requested verification of the modifications in the
Verisign
proposal to ICANN. E-mail from Chuck Gomes, Verisign Registry
representative, dated Tuesday, 9 July 2002, verified the statement
made in
his presentation, but noted that the actual offer to ICANN had not
been
modified, pending determination that there was receptivity to such
changes.
The three changes were 1) implement of an interim grace period
until
official is implemented 2) no favored treatment of Snap Names holders
3)
pricing to be simplified by removing rebates and charging one fixed
price of
$24 to registrars per subscription year.
The TF met further to consider further ICANN Web Forum input, GA
submissions, TF discussions and submissions to the TF itself via
emails sent
directly to the Chair, which were sent forward to the TF archives,
Public
Forum input, as well as these modifications to the VS WLS proposal.
Taking
into account this information, modifications were made to the TF
recommendations to reflect the substantive changes, which Verisign
noted it
was willing to make in its request for approval. The Draft Final
Report,
presented in Bucharest to the Names Council and to the Public Forum,
were
revised, updated, and posted for an additional 8 day of comment, via
the
DNSO web site, with linkage from the ICANN site. Announcements were
sent to
all constituencies, the GA, and published by ICANN of this additional
period
of comment.
Links are provided in a latter section to all substantive comments
received.
B. Summary of the work of the Task Force, which
describes:
1. Documentation of the extent of agreement and disagreement among
impact
parties:
Comments received, including via the conference call outreach, and in
the
various Public Fora can be roughly grouped as follows:
§ Responses from
registrars and others who presently offer services
similar to WLS at the registrar level which are specific to the points
and
oppose WLS at the Verisign Registry Level
§ Responses from
SnapNames and Verisign, which are supportive of the
WLS at the Verisign Registry Level,
§ Responses from a
group of entities who specifically support the
SnapNames proposal and spoke in support of WLS.
§ Responses from
parties who object to the WLS proposal at the
Verisign Registry level which include other constituencies and GA
submissions
§ Response from one
constituency which was neutral on WLS but
supported standard redemption grace period.
§ Comments included
negative comments about the costs of such
services or about the increase in costs to users.
§ Responses from
parties who object to WLS at the Registry level,
but appear to be focused on the involvement of Verisign the Registrar
and
negative experiences they have had related to transfers, deletions or
other
processes which are not related to WLS itself
§ Two petitions
(links provided in a later section) which are
opposed to WLS at the Verisign Registry level. Signatories are
well
identified in one petition; the second petition, which has over
3000
signatures, is less documented.
§ Responses
contained in many of the above responses and in the
constituency and GA submissions, which support the need for a
uniform
redemption process and a standard deletion process.
+ The gTLD constituency provided a statement challenging
the
?jurisdiction? of the TF and explaining that
the TF report ?delves into
matters that are beyond the scope of any
policy task force, including,
1) whether a Registry Service can be
introduced by a Registry Operator;
and (2) the price of a Registry Service.
It believes that such issues
are related to the business of the individual
registry and are more*e
appropriate for the market place to regulate
rather than the policy
making body of ICANN. Their comments are
forwarded as Appendix B in
entirety. Their comments were taken
into account and discussed within
the TF several times; and consultation was
taken from the ICANN
counsel.
§ A very few other
comments from individuals who responded
questioned the ICANN consideration of approval of services at the
registry
level, and ICANN?s role in setting costs.
2. Documentation of Extent of Agreement and disagreement among
affected
parties:
Areas of disagreement:
The Task Force found that there are significant differences between
the
parties most directly affected by the introduction of this
service-some
registrars, and providers of competitive services similar to WLS at
the
registrar level who do not support the WLS at the Registry level,
and
SnapNames, Verisign, and a group of respondents who identify
themselves as
being able to benefit from the certainty of obtaining a WLS at the
sole
source level who support WLS at the Registry level.
Again, the gTLD constituency and a few other commenters question
whether the
policy making supporting organization of ICANN should be reviewing
this
process via a DNSO TF or should be involved at all.
Areas of Agreement:
There is support in the community for both a uniform redemption grace
period
and the establishment of a standard deletions period.
Note: Within the Task Force, specific to these two items,
unanimous
agreement within the Task Force exists for the need for a uniform
redemption
grace period.
Agreement exists for a standard deletions period, although there
was
disagreement within the task force about the timing of such
implementation.
Five task force members supported the establishment of a standard
deletions
period at the same time as WLS and implemented before WLS. The
remaining
three support the need for a standard deletions period, but two
support that
it need not be in place before WLS is implemented, while one
supports
considering it separately.
3. Outreach undertaken/input received in various public for a
(including a
list of links where comments are achieved)
This topic has been the topic of discussion on the GA for several
months.
After the formal referral to the Task Force, public forums were opened
by
ICANN and the Task Force held several ?open conference? calls to
take
further input to the Task Force.
The ICANN Board further held a public
forum session at the Bucharest ICANN meetings where Verisign
presented, the
Task Force made a short statement of its recommendations and
rationale, and
attendees at the meeting made several comments. The GA,
BC, IPC, Registrar
and Registry Constituencies have all submitted written comments, at
various
stages of the comment process. Verisign and SnapNames both
submitted
extensive documents, which addressed many of the questions raised on
the
comment forums. The Final Recommendations of the Task Force were
further
posted for another 8 day public comment period.
4. Substantive Submissions to achieve adequate representation of
those
likely to be impacted
Links are provided to the various public forums. The Task
Force notes that
the submissions are available for review by any interested party.
n See appendix E for the list of
links
5. Statement on Nature and Intensity of reasoned support and
opposition to
the proposed policy recommendation
The Task force identified bipolar views on the approval of the WLS at
the
Verisign Registry service.
Strong support exists for the conditions of establishment of a
standard
redemption grace period, as described in the Recommendation II, and
for the
establishment of a standard deletions period.
V. PowerPoint Presentation Presented to the Names Council in
Bucharest with
draft recommendations and background and Status Report of the work of
the
Task Force
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020711.TFtransfer-WLS-update.ppt
VI. Statements from Constituency/other entities -- included as
Appendix B
and C
· Registry Constituency
Statement
· IPC Statement
VII. Action Requested:
The Task Force forwards the Final Report with our final
recommendations,
supported by the vote of the Task Force members, to the Names Council
for
their discussion and vote and for transmittal to the Board, supported
by the
vote of the Names Council. The Final Report provides the
documentation
needed to support the recommendations of the Task Force
We therefore recommend to the Names Council that the recommendations
receive
a supporting vote by the Names Council and be forwarded to the
Board.
Should any further clarification be needed, the Task Force is prepared
to
respond. Several members of the Task Force are Names Council
members;
however, the full Task Force stands ready to respond as needed to
any
questions.
Appendices attached
A: Recommendations of the Task Force with Voting Results
B: Registry Constituency Statement
C: IPC Statement
D. Task Force Membership
E. Links to the Archives, Forums, submissions
A RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE
The ballot, which follows, is the final ballot for the e-mail vote of
the
Transfer Task Force on the Task Force recommendations on the WLS.
Recommendations were modified in a conference call meeting, July 22,
2002
where all members of the Task Force were represented except for the
GA.
The Task Force representatives are asked to return their vote by
private
e-mail directly to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 2:00 pm (14:00) EST.
The Task Force is presented with two recommendations. You are asked to
vote
on both and on each sub-element by putting [x] next to your
choice.
I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
Please vote on this:
A. The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
enforce the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
practice
Yes
No
Abstain
B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement
to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain
C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
months.
Yes
No
Abstain
I. Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes
No
Abstain
II. Recommendation:
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 alternatively recommend that WLS be
approved with
conditions:
Please vote on this.
A. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and
the
establishment of a standard deletion practice.
Yes
No
Abstain
B. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion
practice
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
could be
considered separately from WLS.
VOTE ON ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE:
1) Standard Deletion practice should be established at same time as
WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain
2) Standard deletion practice should be established, but need not be
in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes
No
Abstain
3) Standard deletion practice should be considered separately.
Yes
NO
Abstain
TWO OPTIONS ARE PRESENTED, for C, C. 1 and C. 2 BUT ONLY VOTE
FOR ONE
C. 1. 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.
OR
C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes
No
Abstain
D. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has
placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
option.
{Transparency}
Yes
No
Abstain
E. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations
for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes
No
Abstain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Please fill in the following information:
NAME:
Please identify name of Constituency or GA:
Return your ballot by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 2:00 pm EST (14:00
EST)
to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
TRANSFER TASK FORCE VOTING RESULTS
. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
enforce
the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
practice
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
Accepted by all
B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
amend its
agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6 YES 2 NO
C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
WLS for
12 months.
Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
No: gTLD
Abstain: NonC, IP
5 YES
1 NO 2 ABSTENTIONS
I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6
YES 2 NO
II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
prime
recommendation.
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 alternatively recommend that WLS be
approved with
conditions:
A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
and
proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and
the
establishment of a standard deletion practise.
Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
No:gTLD
7 YES 1 NO
B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a
standard
deletion practise
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
could be
considered separately from WLS.
of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
Yes: GA, NonC, (CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
5 YES
2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes: IP, NonC
2 YES
3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes: gTLD
1 YES
C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
Registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant
2 YES
C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
Abstain: gTLD,
5 YES 1 Abstain
D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
as to
who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
option.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP
Abstain: gTLD
6 YES 1
NO 1 Abstain
E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
considerations
for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
5 YES 3 Abstain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B: Registry Constituency Statement:
gTLD Statement (Revised).
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html
Appendix C: IPC Statement on the Proposed Transfer Task
Force
Recommendations on WLS
THE PROBLEM:
The IPC strongly believes that the matter of unintentional
deletions is a
problem that does not distinguish among particular registries,
registrars or
registrants. While some inadvertent deletions occur because of
registrant
failure to renew, too many are due to registry or registrar error
or
misconduct. It is an industry-wide concern, one that
rightly should be
addressed at the ICANN-level as a matter of policy, and whose
solution
should be applicable across the spectrum of gTLD registrars and
registries.
Names associated with intellectual property rights are
particularly
attractive to theft by hijackers and speculators who have been known
to
modify information to make it appear as though a request for deletion
of the
domain name has been made by the registrar. A piecemeal solution
of
individual business models, such as the proposed WLS, does not by
itself
address the concerns of intellectual property owners, who, like ICANN,
are
particularly troubled about the effects of accidental deletions on
consumers
and businesses that are increasingly relying on the Internet to
service
their commercial needs.
TR-TF RECOMMENDATIONS:
After reviewing the proposed recommendations posted by the Transfer
Task
Force, the IPC has the following comments:
Since it appears that the TF cannot reach consensus regarding the
proposed
WLS, the TF should present the Board with a summary of the divergent
views.
The IPC does not support presenting an alternative recommendation
regarding
WLS to the Board. It is the IPC?s position that the Task Force
is charged
with providing, if possible, a clear consensus position on the WLS
proposal
to the Board. If no consensus has developed, the Task Force is
duty bound
to advise the Board of the lack of consensus and provide the Board
with a
summary of the various divergent viewpoints on the issues.
Accordingly, the
IPC urges the Transfers Task Force to consider adopting a single
clear
recommendation to the Board. We turn now to our specific
comments
regarding the Task Forces Recommendations.
THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY:
The IPC agrees with the Task Force recommendation that the
proposed
redemption grace period is thus far the best and most practical
insurance
policy yet derived to handle these and similar problems. The IPC
strongly
urges that implementation of the Redemption Grace Period must precede
any
implementation taken on WLS. Provided this condition precedent
is met, the
IPC does not object to the proposed WLS.
The IPC notes that a representative of Verisign Global Registry
(?VGRS?)
presented amendments to its WLS proposal during its presentation to
the
ICANN Board at the recent ICANN meeting in Bucharest.
Specifically, the
VGRS representative stated that VGRS would implement an ?interim?
Redemption
Grace Period (?RGP?) for .net and .com until such time as fully-tested
RGP
is implemented across all registries.
At present, the IPC has no further
details on the VGRS amended proposal. Nevertheless, the IPC
believes that
any RGP implemented by VGRS on an interim basis would have to be
the
functional and operational equivalent of the RGP proposed by ICANN
staff in
order to satisfy the condition precedent set forth in the
preceding
paragraph. To this end, the IPC supports the Task Force?s
recommendation
with regard to the requirement of a fully functional RGP and cannot
comment
on the feasibility of the interim RGP proposed by VGRS.
NOTICE AND TRANSPARENCY:
The IPC disagrees with the Transfer Task Force recommendations on
notice and
transparency. To make public or to disclose to the registrant
the identity
of the WLS subscriber would provide an incentive for a bad-faith
registrant
to continue renewing a registration. The interest in
notice and
transparency can be fully met through the requirement that registrars
verify
previously submitted contact data of a WLS subscriber before
effectuating
the transfer of a registration to that subscriber (at which point the
WLS
subscriber contact data will appear in WHOIS).
PRICING:
With regard to the issue of pricing, the IPC again notes that a
representative of VGRS stated that the WLS proposal was being amended
to
revise the pricing model in the WLS proposal. Specifically, the
VGRS
representative stated that the pricing model set forth in its WLS
proposal
would be revised to remove the rebate structure originally put forward
in
its proposal and that VGRS would charge all registrars a consistent
flat
$24.00 fee per subscription. The IPC would like to note its
appreciation
for the continued willingness of VGRS to revisit its WLS proposal
based on
community input. While taking no specific position
on pricing, the IPC
believes that the pricing for WLS should be structured in order to
discourage gaming of the WLS by domain name speculators and
cybersquatters.
The IPC wishes to point out that the position set out above is
without
prejudice to the need for a uniform transfers and deletion policy,
but
reflects the views we would like communicated to the Task Force by its
July
22, 2002 deadline (since we know a uniform policy cannot be completed
by
then).
Appendix D. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
?ccTLD - Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>Alternate
"ccTLD - Rick Shera" <rjs@lojo.co.nz>
"ISP - Tony Holmes" <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>
Alternate
"ISP - Mark McFadden" <mcf@uwm.edu>
"IPC - Nick Wood" <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>
Resigned July,2002-to be replaced
"BC - Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com> Chair
"BC - Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>
"Registrars - Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
"gTLD - Christine Russo" <crusso@verisign.com>
"GA - Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
"David Safran" <dsafran@nixonpeabody.com>
"NonCom - James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
"NonCom - Erick Iriarte" <faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe>
"Sloan Gaon" <sgaon@registrypro.com>
"Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
replacing Sloan Goan, effective
July,2002
Secretarial assistance:
"BC Transfer Help - Marie Juliano" <mjuliano@att.com
"DNSO.Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
Appendix E: LINKS to SUPPORTING MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
SUBMISSIONS on WLS
Redemption Grace period - 14 February 2002, ICANN staff posted a
proposal to
establish a RGP
http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
Technical steering group's Implementation proposal
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm
RGP presented at ACCRA - summary of
comments
http://www.icann.org/accra/redemption-topic.htm
VGRS's current proposal grows out of a WLS proposal that it sent to
the DNSO
Registrars Constituency on 30 December 2001.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf
After comments from that constituency and others, VGRS revised its
proposal
on 28 January.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-28jan02.pdf
After additional discussions with registrars and others, VGRS
revised the
proposal a second time and submitted it with the 21 March 2002 request
for
amendment to Appendix G.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf
Whereas, on 21 March 2002 VeriSign, Inc., the operator of the .com and
.net
registries, requested amendments to the registry agreements for
those
top-level domains to allow it to conduct a twelve-month trial of a
proposed
wait-listing service (WLS) to be offered through accredited registrars
for
an annual fee;
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#02.53
Whereas, in resolution 02.53 the Board requested the Names Council
to
coordinate within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning
the
deletion of domain names and possible solutions for those issues and
to
submit to the Board a status report on that review, with the status
report
to include any recommendations concerning VeriSign's request to modify
the
.com and .net agreements to allow it to provide the WLS;
Whereas, the DNSO's Transfers Task Force presented to the Board a
status
report giving preliminary findings and recommendations on WLS, but
requiring
additional analysis and discussion within the DNSO before the report
is
finalized;
DNSO Status report
Local copy:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020604.NCTransferTF-report.html
ICANN reference :
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/dnso-deletes-report-10jun02.htm
Whereas, as contemplated by resolution 02.55 ICANN has received
various
public comments on the WLS on a web-based public comment forum;
ICANN public forum comments
http://forum.icann.org/wls/
Whereas, a Public Forum was held on 27 June 2002 at ICANN's meetings
in
Bucharest,
Preliminary report ICANN meetings in Bucharest
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm
Verisign WLS proposal presented at Bucharest public forum
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm
during which VeriSign gave a presentation of the WLS in which it
constructively proposed changes to accommodate concerns expressed
in
community comments; the DNSO Transfers Task Force summarized its
preliminary
findings and recommendations; and several members of the Internet
community
gave their views on WLS;
Transfer Task Force pp presentation Bucharest
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-TransferTF-final.ppt
Overview of WLS presented by Grant Forsyth in Bucharest
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-VRSN-proposed-WLS.ppt
Whereas, the Board, although very anxious to ensure that action on
VeriSign's request proceeds without unnecessary delay, believes that
its
consideration of the request would be assisted by receiving the final
report
of the DNSO's bottom-up consensus-development effort, including its
views on
the modifications recently proposed by VeriSign;
Resolved [02.84] that the Names Council is requested to provide, no
later
than 26 July 2002, its final recommendations, with its supporting
rationale
and any separate positions of DNSO
constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS
request (including the modifications made on 27 June 2002), so that
the
Board may act shortly thereafter.
INPUT
Transfer TF deletions, solutions, and WLS draft updated for the
Names
Council meeting July 11, 2002
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/WLS-pres-Bucharest-update-nc.ppt
Public comments were open on the final report until July 22, 2002
Final report :
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html
The comments are found in:
Archives: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-deletes/Arc01/
A link was put on the ICANN web site during the Public comment
period
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jul02.htm
Full archives of the Transfer Task Force are to be found in:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ NC Transfer
(open 29 Oct
2001)
gTLD Statement (Revised).
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html
Two petitions were received:
1. http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html
This petition is mention in the public forum at
http://forum.icann.org/wls/
2. Presented to the Board in Bucharest on behalf of Magi Inc. at
http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/magi-petition.doc
--
__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|