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

["David Wascher" <dwascher@iaregistry.com>]

After reading the latest State of the Domain report again and this list the
WLS is still a poor technical solution for a VeriSign generated problem. The
speculators (that use us all) already know of the valuable domains that they
will want. The same registrars that the speculators use today will again use
their 40 connections and will again be jamming the system of which this is
to solve. Every single batch registration interface will be used by a
speculator to place a WLS on every possible name out their. In some cases
they will spend the money just on the chance it won't get renewed.

Their will be such a land rush on the opening day to reserve these names
that the general public (which is one reason for this) still will have very
little hope in getting a WLS for a name. VGRS will be hit by speculators
with lists of name check to see if anyone missed a WLS or if a WLS was moved
off of a name. These checks will run 24 hours a day just like today.

So is this a solution for the general public or is this a solution to
protect the VGRS system?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm Rader
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 2:07 PM
> To: Beckwith Bruce; RegistrarsDnso Org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] WLS Draft TF Recommendations
>
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
>