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

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

Not as long as there is a sole registry for each TLD.

-rwr (not speaking as a TF member, rep, whatever).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations


> Paul,
>
> Thanks for your note.
>
> Wouldn't you agree that once ICANN introduced competition into the gTLD
> space, and with so many ccTLDs now registering significant numbers of
> domains (.de, .uk, perhaps shortly even .au), that as in the registrar
> space, where registrars can easily offer competitive products and
services,
> that now, in this new competitive registry space, all registries, not just
> the one working on WLS, should have that same opportunity to test the
> markets with new products and services?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@enom.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:22 PM
> To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> Maybe I am missing something (or maybe you are),
> but I thought the point of item 3 (and 4)
> below was that there currently are registrars offering competing
> services to register deleted names, and if WLS is implemented
> by the registry, since it would then be a monopoly service, these
> registras would no longer be able to compete in this area.
> Obviously, registrars offering services do not need ICANN, NC or
> Transfers Task Force review, but registries that offer monopoly
> services, it seems to me, do.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beckwith, Bruce [mailto:bbeckwith@verisign.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:51 PM
> To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations
>
>
> 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
> >
> >