RE: [registrars] Further Comments on Final Report of the Transfer Task Force on the WLS proposal

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Ross,

> 
> Bruce - I'm not sure that I completely understand your 
> proposal. Are you
> advocating that names in a post-expiration grace period are treated
> different than those that aren't (and are in a pre-expiry period?).

No.

> Would it not make more sense to address the treatment of names in a
> post-expiration state through a standardized deletions practice rather
> than through the commercial WLS proposition?

Yes.

What I have proposed is a phased introduction.
During Phase 1, WLS is completely separated from the deletion/renewal
process that occurs after the expiry date.  This gives the community time
to:
(1) Evaluate WLS as a stand alone service
(2) Work on a standardised deletion process


I have also proposed that once it is known for sure that a name is scheduled
for deletion (ie once you know that at 9am on Monday that the name will be
available) - the cost of obtaining the name at the registry should remain
the same as it is today ($6), otherwise this would be an increase in price
in the core domain name registration service.  

Remember that WLS is NOT a solution to the deletes issue.

> 
> Also, I'd like your thought on the Transfers TF including language in
> the recommendation that sets the stage for whatever precedent we are
> about to set. It concerns me that the TF/DNSO may set a precedent
> whereby Registry Services that create an undue benefit for 
> the Registry
> Operator due to an existing monopoly (that of control of the TLD) are
> treated the same as those that do not. If we play things out a little
> bit, I can see a situation whereby an offering like Neulevel's WhoBiz
> would get painted with the same policy brush as Verisign's 
> WLS. It would
> certainly be my preference if the former was left outside of any ICANN
> review (other than a cursory inspection to ensure that it did not fall
> into the latter category). Those that fall into the latter category
> would necessarily need a higher level of review to uphold ICANN's
> mandate to promote competition.

Personally, I don't think the Transfer TF is the place for the discussion on
the process for revewing a proposal for a new registry task force.

The Transfer TF should be solving the transfer problem.

I do agree that a separate working group should be formed to review how to
handle any new proposal for a registry service.

The Transfer TF could recommend that a particular item of work by carried
out by a different group.

Part of our process problems are that particular TF have their scopes
continuously widened.
THus nothing is ever complete.

It is like a software engineering project, where the requirements are
forever changing, and thus the project is NEVER finished.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

>