Re: [registrars] ICANN position on Versign WLS service : Touton recommends it !

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

Most important points...

"it is my judgment that the Board should not seek to decide how to deal with
this request without invoking the formal consensus development processes
currently established within ICANN.

This judgment is reinforced by the Registrars Constituency vote opposing
implementation of WLS and the fact that the Names Council Transfer Task
Force is currently considering the WLS issue, with a report to the Board
expected in June.
Thus, I recommend that the Board establish the following procedure for
obtaining public comment to illuminate its consideration of the VGRS WLS
proposal:

  1. The proposal and related documents should be posted for public comment
for a thirty day period.

  2. The DNSO Names Council should be requested to provide any
recommendations concerning the WLS proposal at least three weeks before
commencement of the Bucharest meeting.

  3. Time should be devoted to the WLS issue at the Public Forum in
Bucharest.

The Board could then act on the merits of the WLS proposal at Bucharest (or
after, if additional issues requiring more time arise). If ultimately the
Board's decision is that the amendment should be made, then a suitable
request can be made to the U.S. Department of Commerce for approval."

Looks like round three is about to start. Get your seats quickly ;)

-rwr





----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick" <dnso-reg@gandi.net>
To: "Registrars List" <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:12 AM
Subject: [registrars] ICANN position on Versign WLS service : Touton
recommends it !


> See http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm
> (recommandation of Louis Touton to the board)
>
> I speficically note the following points:
>
> - wrt current SnapBack subscriptions:
> <quote>
> With respect to registrars currently offering this type of service through
>    SnapNames' "SnapBack" service, VGRS proposes a special transitional
arrangement:
>
>        "On the WLS launch date, any domain name that has an existing
SnapBack subscription would be
>        excluded from the WLS system, meaning that no one, including
SnapNames or registrars who license
>        SnapNames' technology, can take out a WLS subscription for that
domain names so long as an active
>        SnapBack subscription is in place. SnapNames, the registrars, and
any individuals interested in a particular
>        domain name would continue to compete for it as they do today."
>
>    VeriSign GRS Responses to Domain Name Wait Listing Service Questions
(15 Feb. 2001), response 18.
>
>    VGRS has not proposed to exclude names presently involved in
non-SnapNames services from the WLS.
> </quote>
>
> - WLS is considered as Registry services:
> <quote>
> The proposed WLS is a registry service because,
>    unlike the wait-listing services provided competitively by registrars,
it is implemented by bypassing the normal return of
>    deleted names to the available pool and by instead assigning them to
the registrar and customer holding the
>    reservation. In this way, the proposed WLS would become integrated into
the operation of the .com and .net
>    registries.
> </quote>
>
> - Special Role of U.S. Commerce Department in the VeriSign Agreements
>
> ICANN can not amend VGRS agreements without explicit DoC approval.
>
> - I thought that VGRS said WLS has nothing to do with Registry loads ?
> But I read :
> <quote>
> In the specific case of WLS, however, it is quite possible that some of
the technically harmful effects of the
>        registrar-level services (such as the high registry loads caused by
"add storms") may justify instituting a
>        registry-level WLS.
> </quote>
>
>
> Patrick.