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

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Hello Bruce...

Correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't Verisign GRS actually request 
comments and feedback on WLS?  Why would Verisign Registrar oppose 
providing Verisign GRS with comments they actually requested?

--On Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:50 PM -0400 "Beckwith, Bruce" 
<bbeckwith@verisign.com> wrote:

> Ross,
>
> The VeriSign Registrar objects to any recommendation regarding the WLS or
> any other service or product promoted by any of the registries, either
> gTLD or ccTLD.  As noted in Grant's email below, specifically item 3,
> other organizations have been able to offer services without ICANN, Names
> Council, nor Transfers Task Force review, therefore, it is not reasonable
> to subject registries to this level of intrusive regulation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 6:12 PM
> To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: [registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations
>
>
> 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
>>
>>



*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com