RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Ross,

Here are our comments in more detail.

We DO agree with the recommendation that ICANN implement the Redemptions
Grace Period for deleted domains. We support the first stage implementation
described in the proposal at:

http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm

However, as the proposal notes, more thought needs to be given on the idea
of inter-Registrar Transfers during the Delete Pending period. We hope that
as the ICANN General Counsel proceeds with negotiations that that fact is
kept in mind.

We DON'T agree that ICANN should attempt to deny approval of the WLS
service. At this point we believe the market should be allowed to decide the
viability of this service. We are also concerned that with all of the
discussion and concern regarding ICANN reform, that if they attempt to
regulate the registries too closely, it may just raise more questions about
ICANN's viability, and go farther to prove many of ICANN's critics as
correct.

We DON'T agree that ICANN should attempt to directly set the price of this
service, but should establish, as with any registry service, that whatever
pricing is decided upon by VeriSign that it is the same for all registrars
or other party's that may be allowed to offer it.

We DON'T agree with the recommendation that the current registrant should be
sent a notice about a WLS subscription being placed on their domain name. We
don't understand the purpose of alarming them with this information after
the fact. Registrars already have a vested interest in encouraging renewals.
And since there will be a redemption period of one sort or another to
protect the registrant we don't see a need for this notice. With or without
the WLS, if they let their registration lapse, someone is going to snap it
up.

We DO agree that the fact that a WLS subscription has been placed on a name
should be available upon request, either through a registrar request, or
perhaps through the Whois in some manner.

We DON'T agree that the personal information of the WLS holder should be
available. They are not the registrant of the domain name, at least not yet.
There is enough unfortunate abuse of people's personal information without
finding additional excuses for making it available.

So while there are a couple of points we would agree with, we vote NOT to
support the recommendation overall.

Tim Ruiz
Go Daddy Software, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:52 AM
To: 'Nikolaj Nyholm'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection


Tim/Nikolaj,

Do either of you have any specific comments on any of the specific
recommendations in the final report? It would be especially helpful if
you could provide me with any thoughts you might have in that regard.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Nikolaj Nyholm
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:08 AM
> To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
>
>
> > So, at this time we DO NOT
> > oppose the WLS
> > and DO oppose the TF recommendations as a whole. We would
> support the
> > recommendation regarding the Redemptions Grace Period if it
> > were separate
> > from the rest of the report.
>
> Ascio shares this position.
>
> Regards,
> Nikolaj
>