Prepared by Marilyn
Cade, Chair
Transfers Task Force
June 4, 2002
Overview and
Background:
On 21
March 2002 Verisign proposed to introduce a new registry service -
the Wait List Service (WLS) - and requested from ICANN a change to its
registry agreement of.com and .net registries to enable this.
At their April 22, 2002
special meeting of the ICANN Board, the Board noted the previous consideration
that the Transfers Task Force {TR-TF} in the context of the analysis of
transfers, and noted that a report of the Transfer TF will be of assistance in
evaluating the Verisign WLS proposal.
At the 4/22 board
meeting, via Resolution [02.53] the Board requested the Names Council to
coordinate within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the
deletion of domain names and possible solutions for those issues and to submit
to the Board, no later than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with
the status report to include any recommendations with supporting materials
concerning Verisign’s request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow
it to provide a wait listing service for a fee as part of its operation of the
.com and .net registries.
The Secretary was also
directed to advise the Address and Protocol Councils of the request and the
board’s intent to consider that request at its Bucharest meeting on 28 June
2002, with an invitation to those councils to submit comments, if any, before
that time. Via Resolution [02.55] the
Board invited public comments and directed that a suitable mechanism be
established for allowing comments over the Internet for at least a 30 day
period.
The Names Council
referred this matter to the Transfer Task Force on 4/24/02. The Task Force
published Terms of Reference; numerous postings within the GA took place;
comments from the GA and others have been received, and the TF hosted two
widely publicized and open to any interested party conference calls on 5/21/02
and 5/22/02.
MP 3 recordings and
minutes are provided for those calls via the Transfer Task Force List. In
addition to usual notice via posting on the Transfer TF archive, all
constituencies and the GA were notified of the calls. The names of all conference call attendees will be posted. In
addition, comments have been posted to the TR-TF archive when requested by
participants in the outreach calls.
Approximately 19 attendees attended each of the calls; although there
was some overlap in participation.
The GA, BC, IPC
constituencies have all submitted written comments. On May 25, the TF Chair
posted an extensive summary of discussions of the TR-TF related to Deletions,
Solutions and VGRS WLS. This document
is available on the archives of the TR-TF.
This document provides
the requested status report described in the Board referral and outlines the
present views of the TR-TF, related to the issues of deletions, possible
solutions, and the VGRS WLS proposal and is presented to the Names Council at
its June 6 meeting, for forwarding to the Board on June10, 2002.
Status Report:
The larger issues
related to deletions and solutions are identified in this status report and
some suggestions from participants are noted for further exploration by the
TF. Overall, unintended, fraudulent, or
accidental deletions are viewed as having a significant effect on registrants,
and some concerns have been expressed that there has not been sufficient
outreach to registrants to document such harm. The TF believes that sufficient data exists to determine that
registrants are harmed by such activities and that the public forum will
provide further documentation of the views of registrants. The TF also plans to
ask the At Large registration list, as well as constituencies and the GA for
any further specific comments from registrants related to deletions and
proposed solutions.
Preliminary Findings
of the TF:
After consultation
with the community who has responded to a broad set of invitations to provide
comments and input, as well as input received from several constituencies/GA,
the Names Council Transfers Task force provides the following comments:
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 lose their currently registered
gTLD domain name should its registration unintentionally lapse.
2.
The concerns of
name holders who lose their names through accident, mistake, misunderstanding
can be addressed through other mechanisms, other than a WLS service [addressed
in more detail later].
3. It appears that the concerns of legitimate
domain name holders who use the domain name and have IP interests in the domain
name may also be addressed by other mechanisms than WLS, should they need
to/choose to recover a name that is being cybersquatted, or is desirable for
their business/organizational identity.
[further discussion needed].
4. Other registrants who seek to register a
specific name, large numbers of names, or a wide variety of lapsing names are
presently using a variety of competitive services to “grab” deleted names.
5. These competitive services are differentiated
from one another and are used by “regular” registrants, as well as bulk
purchasers of names. Comments were received that indicate that
some IP owners also use the services.
II. User Concerns:
Broad agreement exists
within the TF that underlying the frustration, confusion, and concerns related to deletions is an ill
defined and poorly enforced deletions policy and variant practices between the
ICANN accredited registrars, their agents and the registry for .com and .net.
1. Suggestions for
addressing these issues include the recently announced Redemptions Policy which
some on the TF and in the community of respondents believe will enable the
majority of individual registrants to achieve a “safe harbor” for recovery, in
the event of accidental or mistaken deletion.
2. Several respondents
identified the need for a standard deletions policy that would be established
by accreditation agreement and enforced by ICANN, to include the Redemptions
Period as a key element.
3. Noted by the TF and
other commenters was the confusion caused by practices, which vary, and by the
lack of certainty and information about processes related to deletions.
III. Competition
and Harm to existing Competition:
1. The TF determines that 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.
2.
In their comments,
many of the respondents to the TF outreach made the point that the VGRS WLS
service would create unfair competitive conditions for the existing services;
and those who are in that market, who responded, noted that they were extremely
concerned about their ability to survive the new entrant at the sole
source/monopoly level.
3.
Thus, if this were
the case, the TF would conclude that the entrance of the VGRS WLS would cause
conditions, which harm existing competing services in the WLS space.
4.
If this is the
case, and so far, the comments submitted support this view, we should therefore
expect existing competing services to find conditions changing to the point
that it is impossible to compete with the new entrant at the sole
source/monopoly level.
5.
Trial: Comments
were made from respondents that this is actually a 24 month service offering,
not a trial, since the service, if approved, would exist for 12months, and
services contracted in the12th month of the “trial” would still exist for an additional
12 months from contract date. Since the
marketing of the “trial” will not be as a trial, the TF would therefore not be
persuaded that the use of the term “trial” limits the expectations of the
market, or of users.
6. Therefore, the TF could assume that if the
“trial” is approved, the ability of the existing competitive differentiated
services to survive will be extremely limited to nonexistent.
III.
Technical Solutions to “Add Storms:”
1. It was acknowledged that present practices of
competitive services result in “add storms” which are affecting the registry’s
services, and according to the registry, adding significant costs for support
of all the attempts to “grab” names but without resulting in transactions which
provide revenue to the registry.
2. Discussions included the technical implications
of these “attacks” and what adjustments have been made to deal with them. It was acknowledged that technical solutions
have been provided to address some of them.
3. However, the Registrar constituency presentation
noted that many of the technical adjustments proposed or recommended by their
constituency have not been made. [The TF will seek to clarify VSGR response to
this and included their response in the final report].
4. Comments from other participants noted that
other changes in approach could be undertaken which could diminish the “add
storms” impact and duration, while still supporting competitive services at the
registrar level. [The TF will seek to understand why/whether such changes might
ameliorate the
”add storms” to a significant degree and will comment accordingly].
5. So far, there has been no evidence provided to
the TF suggesting that there are any technical issues that would prohibit the
existing services from continuing to operate.
6. The TF was interested in whether there was
indication that VS was recommending this service to address existing demands on
the technical performance of the database. However, existing data from VS
itself is that while the “add storms” are a serious problem, they have taken
steps to address the technical performance during these periods.
From the
above we would note that:
Based on the TF work,
we believe that current user frustration” and concern losing an expiring gTLD
domain name accidentally or though misunderstanding, can and should be
addressed through the swift introduction and effective enforcement of the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice.
Further,
1. The TF as a preliminary finding believes that a
standard deletions period and set of procedures, which are standardized across
registrars, will further limit harm and concern in the overall deletions areas.
The TF will further discuss what steps would be needed to implement a standard
deletions period and procedure, which can be implemented and enforced through
the accreditation agreements with ICANN accredited registrars
2.
The TF noted that
competing services exist today at the registrar level to fulfill any additional
need related to purchasing registration for names which are lapsing but where
no existing relationship exists and the registrant is interested in registering
a legitimately deleted name/group of names. So far, the TF did not identify
from their own perspective, or from comments submitted that there is added
legitimate consumer benefit achieved from the introduction of the WLS.
3. The VGRS has complained about the “add storms”
and has suggested that the VGRS WLS will assist in elevating the technical
stresses created by these “add storms”; however, their primary assertion is that
service will be better and more efficient, and more “successful” than services
provided at competitive level via the registrar or other third parties.
4.
Some commentors
expressed concern and by some TF members that user interests are likely to be
harmed through the reduction in competition.
5.
Members of the TF and respondents questioned whether there is a
strong possibility of discriminatory behavior between the large registrar[s]
and registry business of Verisign as a result of the sole source/monopoly status
of the registry as a result of the introduction of the WLS at the registry
level.
Based on the
above observations, over the next few weeks, we will further explore
making policy recommendations and seek further comment from the TF and from the
community. At present, the possible
preliminary policy recommendations that are based on the present positions
heard in the TF and in the available comments
are that:
1. The ICANN Board
should move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the proposed
Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and instruct the
staff to ensure an effective mechanism for self reporting of the implementation
status and tracking of its use.
2. The ICANN Board should reject
Verisign's request to amend its agreement to enable it to introduce its
proposed WLS as a sole source/monopoly level service and The ICANN Board
rejects Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
3.
Further work should be undertaken on a fast track basis, on the broader
concerns of deletions and possible solutions to consider what, if any further
efforts are needed to institute a standard deletions period and processes and
to determine whether any policy changes are needed to address effective
solutions to these issues and concerns..
V. NOTE:
The TF discussed the possibility that the community and/or the
Board would reject the possible recommendations described above:
Should the community
or 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, the TF could decide to then
strongly recommend that:
1.
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
2.
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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
VI. Fast
Track versus full Consensus Process:
The Task Force has not yet determined whether to
recommend that a fast track process or a full consensus process, but does
expect to discuss and comment on that in a final posting before Bucharest,
based on comments received after posting on 6/10/02.
VII.
This document represents a Status Report and
summary from the Task Force chair and is not presented as a consensus document
of the TF. Such a document will include
further documentation of the positions taken by representatives of the TF, in
regard to the possible policy recommendations and will be posted by
6/10/02.
The TF chair thanks the participants of the
conference calls; the GA, the
TF members, and others in the community who offered comments and input.
The TF respectfully submits the status report as
requested, and requests that the Names Council transmit the Status report to
the Board.