[registrars] Transfers TF WLS Final Report Ballot Results

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

Registrars,

Please see below for the preliminary results of the ballot taken by the
Transfers TF regarding Verisign's WLS proposal. These results will be
published in a final form and included in the final report of the TF for
submission to the Names Council later today.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to drop me a line.

Thanks,

-rwr

The Task Force is presented with two recommendations. You are asked to vote
on both and on each sub-element by putting [x] next to your choice.

I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:

Please vote on this:

A. The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
No
Abstain
                      Accepted by all

B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
Abstain
                       6 YES          2 NO

C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
No: gTLD
Abstain: NonC, IP
                       5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS

I. Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
Abstain
                         6 YES              2 NO

II. Recommendation:
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 alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
conditions:

Please vote on this.

A. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
establishment of a standard deletion practise.
Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
No:gTLD
Abstain


B. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion practise
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
considered separately from WLS.

VOTE ON ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE:

1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
No
Abstain
                               5 YES
2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes: IP, NonC
No
Abstain
                                 2 YES

3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes: gTLD
NO
Abstain
                                  1 YES
TWO OPTIONS ARE PRESENTED, for C, C. 1 and C. 2  BUT ONLY VOTE FOR ONE

C. 1. 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.
Yes: GA, NonC,
No
Abstain
                                   2 YES
                         OR

C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
No
Abstain: gTLD,
                                 5 YES         1 NO

D. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
{Transparency}
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP
Abstain: gTLD
                                       6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain

E. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
No
Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
                                         5 YES        3 Abstain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---