[registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations

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

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
>
>