|
Final Report of
the Transfer Task Force on the WLS Proposal Presented to the DNSO Names Council
Wednesday, July 24, 2002 |
Submitted by Marilyn
Cade, Chair
On behalf of the
Transfer Task Force
The Final Report of
the Transfer Task on the Verisign WLS proposal is forwarded to the Names
Council for discussion and vote. The
Final Report includes the following information and elements:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background on Recommendations and
Recommendations
III. Report and Supporting Materials
A. Request to undertake
comment/consensus on WLS, including Board request that the TF present a final
report, taking into consideration Verisign’s agreement to provide substantive
modifications in their request for approval for the WLS service
B. Summary of the Work of the TF which
describes
1. Documentation on extent of agreement
and disagreement among impacted parties
2. Outreach undertaken/input received
in various public fora (including links to
3. All substantive submissions to
achieve adequate representation of those likely to be impacted
4. Statement on nature and intensity of
reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy recommendation
IV. Additional materials from Task Force: Link to PowerPoint Presentation presented to
DNSO Names Council, which offers a summary to the community, including the
draft recommendations of the TF
V.
Separate
statements from constituencies
VI.
Action
Requested
VII.
Appendices
I. Executive Summary:
The Transfer Task Force (Task Force or TF) was requested to consider and provide comments on the introduction of a wait listing service, based on technology/services provided by SnapNames and provided by the Verisign Registry. Following Bucharest, the Task Force based its discussions and
considerations on the WLS as proposed to ICANN in March, modified by the three changes offered by Verisign, in Bucharest. Extensive discussions and outreach efforts were undertaken by the Task Force; including presentations by both SnapNames and Verisign. Extensive outreach was undertaken via various public fora; conference calls which were open to interested parties to provide input to the Task Force. Efforts were made to document the range of comments and input received; task force members read the submissions via the various fora and reviewed the petitions posted, as well studying the extensive submissions of SnapNames providing clarification, explanation, and their views. The Task Force developed and published two recommendations – one preferred recommendation, which recommends denying the WLS service, and an alternate recommendation which describes those conditions which the Task Force recommends, should the Board approve the WLS service.
The recommendations
are forwarded to the Names Council for
their discussion and approval at their meeting on July 24, 2002. The Task Force
asks that their recommendations be voted on, affirmatively, and forwarded to
the Board. The Task Force is available
to respond to further questions and issues that the Council might have in order
to support the Names Council providing
a final report to the Board by July 26, 2002, based on the Task Force final
report.
II. Background on Recommendations and
Recommendations
The Task Force
developed and presented two recommendations.
The vote for both Recommendations is a matter of record, and is attached
in Appendix A. The DNSO Secretariat
holds the vote details. The first
Recommendation, [I.], is the preferred recommendation of the Task Force. The
second recommendation [II] is presented to the Names Council, with the
recommendation that both recommendations be approved, and sent to the Board,
since it is the understanding of the Task Force that the Board requested advise
and comment on the WLS from the Task Force.
The second recommendation notes that should the board approve the WLS
request, that certain conditions should be established, and provides suggested
conditions.
The recommendations
are presented here, as part of the final report. Both recommendations I and II
have sub-elements. Each sub-element was voted on separately. The Task Force is presenting the details of
the vote rather than commenting individually on each outcome, letting the votes
speak for themselves.
Recommendations of
the Transfer Task Force related to Verisign WLS: (Also attached as Appendix A
in original form) Abbreviations are used in this section as follows:
RGP: Redemption
Grace Period WLS: Wait
Listing Service
----------------------------------
I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
A. RGP 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
Accepted by
all
B. WLS and agreement. 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
6 YES 2 NO
C. WLS trial. 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
6
YES
2 NO
II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects
the TF prime 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:
A. RGP. 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
7 YES 1 NO
B. Deletions. 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.
(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
5 YES
2) Standard
deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes: IP, NonC
2 YES
3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes: gTLD
1 YES
C. Information/notice.
(CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
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,
2 YES
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
Abstain: gTLD,
5 YES 1 Abstain
D. Transparency. 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.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP
Abstain: gTLD
6 YES 1
NO 1 Abstain
E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with
previous considerations for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
5 YES 3 Abstain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Report and Supporting Materials
A. Request to undertake comment/consensus on
WLS, including Board request that the Task Force present a final report, taking
into consideration the Board request that the Task Force take into account
Verisign’s substantive modifications to their request for approval of the WLS.
The Status Report
regarding Deletions, Solutions and WLS, dated 4 June 2002, describes the
request received by the TF. The ICANN Board referred this matter to the
Transfer Task Force, via the Names Council, via Resolution [02.53]. The Names
Council referred this matter to the TF on 24 June 2002. Via Resolution [02.55]
the Board invited public comment and established a web forum for such comment.
After extensive
examination and dialogue related to the issue of WLS, the Task Force presented
a preliminary preview of its findings, and draft recommendations at the ICANN
Bucharest Names Council meeting. This presentation, and draft recommendations
were further presented to the public during the Public Forum, on 27 June 02.
During their presentation at the Public Forum, Verisign made certain substantive
statements about possible modifications in their proposal. SnapNames and other
supporters made extensive statements of support to the VS/SnapNames/WLS
proposal. Both before and following the meeting’s Public Forum on WLS, ICANN’s
web Comment Forum on WLS received comments, which are both opposing and
supporting WLS. The ICANN forum documents just over 500 comments received.
The Task Force took
note of the possible substantive changes proposed by Verisign during the Public
Comment period. In addition, the Board
asked the Task Force to include its views regarding these modifications
proposed by Verisign. The TF requested verification of the modifications in the
Verisign proposal to ICANN. E-mail from Chuck Gomes, Verisign Registry
representative, dated Tuesday, 9 July 2002, verified the statement made in his
presentation, but noted that the actual offer to ICANN had not been modified,
pending determination that there was receptivity to such changes. The three
changes were 1) implement of an interim grace period until official is
implemented 2) no favored treatment of Snap Names holders 3) pricing to be
simplified by removing rebates and charging one fixed price of $24 to
registrars per subscription year.
The TF met further to
consider further ICANN Web Forum input, GA submissions, TF discussions and
submissions to the TF itself via emails sent directly to the Chair, which were
sent forward to the TF archives, Public Forum input, as well as these
modifications to the VS WLS proposal. Taking into account this information,
modifications were made to the TF recommendations to reflect the substantive
changes, which Verisign noted it was willing to make in its request for
approval. The Draft Final Report, presented in Bucharest to the Names Council
and to the Public Forum, were revised, updated, and posted for an additional 8
day of comment, via the DNSO web site, with linkage from the ICANN site.
Announcements were sent to all constituencies, the GA, and published by ICANN
of this additional period of comment.
Links are provided in
a latter section to all substantive comments received.
B. Summary of the work of the Task Force,
which describes:
1. Documentation
of the extent of agreement and disagreement among impact parties:
Comments received,
including via the conference call outreach, and in the various Public Fora can
be roughly grouped as follows:
§
Responses
from registrars and others who
presently offer services similar to WLS at the registrar level which are
specific to the points and oppose WLS at the Verisign Registry Level
§
Responses
from SnapNames and Verisign, which are supportive of the WLS at the Verisign
Registry Level,
§
Responses
from a group of entities who specifically support the SnapNames proposal and
spoke in support of WLS.
§
Responses
from parties who object to the WLS proposal at the Verisign Registry level
which include other constituencies and GA submissions
§
Response
from one constituency which was neutral on WLS but supported standard
redemption grace period.
§
Comments
included negative comments about the costs of such services or about the
increase in costs to users.
§
Responses
from parties who object to WLS at the Registry level, but appear to be focused
on the involvement of Verisign the Registrar and negative experiences they have
had related to transfers, deletions or other processes which are not related to
WLS itself
§
Two
petitions (links provided in a later section) which are opposed to WLS at the
Verisign Registry level. Signatories
are well identified in one petition; the second petition, which has over 3000
signatures, is less documented.
§
Responses
contained in many of the above responses and in the constituency and GA
submissions, which support the need for a uniform redemption process and a
standard deletion process.
§
A
very few other comments from individuals who responded questioned the ICANN consideration
of approval of services at the registry level, and ICANN’s role in setting
costs.
2. Documentation
of Extent of Agreement and disagreement among affected parties:
Areas of
disagreement:
The Task Force found
that there are significant differences between the parties most directly
affected by the introduction of this service—some registrars, and providers of
competitive services similar to WLS at the registrar level who do not support
the WLS at the Registry level, and SnapNames, Verisign, and a group of
respondents who identify themselves as being able to benefit from the certainty
of obtaining a WLS at the sole source level who support WLS at the Registry
level.
Again, the gTLD
constituency and a few other commenters question whether the policy making
supporting organization of ICANN should be reviewing this process via a DNSO TF
or should be involved at all.
Areas of Agreement:
There is support in
the community for both a uniform redemption grace period and the establishment
of a standard deletions period.
Note: Within the Task
Force, specific to these two items, unanimous agreement within the Task Force
exists for the need for a uniform redemption grace period.
Agreement exists for
a standard deletions period, although there was disagreement within the task
force about the timing of such implementation. Five task force members
supported the establishment of a standard deletions period at the same time as
WLS and implemented before WLS. The remaining three support the need for a
standard deletions period, but two support that it need not be in place before
WLS is implemented, while one supports considering it separately.
3. Outreach
undertaken/input received in various public for a (including a list of links
where comments are achieved)
This topic has been
the topic of discussion on the GA for several months. After the formal referral
to the Task Force, public forums were opened by ICANN and the Task Force held
several “open conference” calls to take further input to the Task Force. The ICANN Board further held a public forum
session at the Bucharest ICANN meetings where Verisign presented, the Task
Force made a short statement of its recommendations and rationale, and
attendees at the meeting made several comments. The GA, BC, IPC, Registrar and Registry Constituencies have all
submitted written comments, at various stages of the comment process. Verisign
and SnapNames both submitted extensive documents, which addressed many of the
questions raised on the comment forums.
The Final Recommendations of the Task Force were further posted for
another 8 day public comment period.
4. Substantive
Submissions to achieve adequate representation of those likely to be impacted
Links are provided to
the various public forums. The Task
Force notes that the submissions are available for review by any interested
party.
n
See
appendix E for the list of links
5. Statement on
Nature and Intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy
recommendation
The Task force
identified bipolar views on the approval of the WLS at the Verisign Registry
service.
Strong support exists
for the conditions of establishment of a standard redemption grace period, as
described in the Recommendation II, and for the establishment of a standard
deletions period.
V. PowerPoint Presentation Presented to the
Names Council in Bucharest with draft recommendations and background and Status
Report of the work of the Task Force
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020711.TFtransfer-WLS-update.ppt
VI. Statements
from Constituency/other entities --
included as Appendix B and C
·
Registry
Constituency Statement
·
IPC
Statement
VII. Action
Requested:
The Task Force
forwards the Final Report with our final recommendations, supported by the vote
of the Task Force members, to the Names Council for their discussion and vote
and for transmittal to the Board, supported by the vote of the Names Council.
The Final Report provides the documentation needed to support the
recommendations of the Task Force
We therefore
recommend to the Names Council that the recommendations receive a supporting
vote by the Names Council and be forwarded to the Board. Should any further clarification be needed,
the Task Force is prepared to respond. Several members of the Task Force are
Names Council members; however, the full Task Force stands ready to respond as
needed to any questions.
Appendices
attached
A: Recommendations of
the Task Force with Voting Results
B: Registry
Constituency Statement
C: IPC Statement
D. Task Force
Membership
E. Links to the
Archives, Forums, submissions
A RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE
The ballot, which follows, is the final ballot for the e-mail vote of the
Transfer Task Force on the Task Force recommendations on the WLS.
Recommendations were modified in a conference call meeting, July 22, 2002
where all members of the Task Force were represented except for the GA.
The Task Force representatives are asked to return their vote by private
e-mail directly to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 2:00 pm (14:00) EST.
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
No
Abstain
B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain
C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
Yes
No
Abstain
I. Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes
No
Abstain
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 practice.
Yes
No
Abstain
B. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion practice
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 practice should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain
2) Standard deletion practice should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes
No
Abstain
3) Standard deletion practice should be considered separately.
Yes
NO
Abstain
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.
OR
C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes
No
Abstain
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
No
Abstain
E. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes
No
Abstain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Please fill in the following information:
NAME:
Please identify name of Constituency or GA:
Return your ballot by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 2:00 pm EST (14:00 EST)
to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
A. RGP 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
Accepted by all
B. WLS and agreement. 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
6 YES 2 NO
C. WLS trial. 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. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6
YES
2 NO
II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects
the TF prime 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:
A. RGP. 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
7 YES 1 NO
B. Deletions. 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.
of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
Yes: GA, NonC, (CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
5 YES
2) Standard deletion
practise should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes: IP, NonC
2 YES
3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes: gTLD
1 YES
C. Information/notice.
(CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the Registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant
2 YES
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
Abstain: gTLD,
5 YES 1 Abstain
D. Transparency. 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.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP
Abstain: gTLD
6 YES 1
NO 1 Abstain
E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with
previous considerations for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
5 YES 3 Abstain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix
B: Registry Constituency Statement:
gTLD
Statement (Revised).
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html
THE PROBLEM:
The IPC
strongly believes that the matter of unintentional deletions is a problem that
does not distinguish among particular registries, registrars or
registrants. While some inadvertent
deletions occur because of registrant failure to renew, too many are due to
registry or registrar error or misconduct.
It is an industry-wide concern, one that rightly should be addressed at
the ICANN-level as a matter of policy, and whose solution should be applicable
across the spectrum of gTLD registrars and registries.
Names
associated with intellectual property rights are particularly attractive to
theft by hijackers and speculators who have been known to modify information to
make it appear as though a request for deletion of the domain name has been
made by the registrar. A piecemeal
solution of individual business models, such as the proposed WLS, does not by
itself address the concerns of intellectual property owners, who, like ICANN,
are particularly troubled about the effects of accidental deletions on
consumers and businesses that are increasingly relying on the Internet to
service their commercial needs.
TR-TF
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After
reviewing the proposed recommendations posted by the Transfer Task Force, the
IPC has the following comments:
Since it
appears that the TF cannot reach consensus regarding the proposed WLS, the TF
should present the Board with a summary of the divergent views. The IPC does not support presenting an
alternative recommendation regarding WLS to the Board. It is the IPC’s position that the Task Force
is charged with providing, if possible, a clear consensus position on the WLS
proposal to the Board. If no consensus
has developed, the Task Force is duty bound to advise the Board of the lack of
consensus and provide the Board with a summary of the various divergent
viewpoints on the issues. Accordingly,
the IPC urges the Transfers Task Force to consider adopting a single clear
recommendation to the Board. We turn
now to our specific comments regarding the Task Forces Recommendations.
THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD SHOULD TAKE
PRIORITY:
The IPC
agrees with the Task Force recommendation that the proposed redemption grace
period is thus far the best and most practical insurance policy yet derived to handle
these and similar problems. The IPC strongly urges that implementation
of the Redemption Grace Period must precede any implementation taken on WLS. Provided this condition precedent is met,
the IPC does not object to the proposed WLS.
The IPC
notes that a representative of Verisign Global Registry (“VGRS”) presented
amendments to its WLS proposal during its presentation to the ICANN Board at
the recent ICANN meeting in Bucharest.
Specifically, the VGRS representative stated that VGRS would implement
an “interim” Redemption Grace Period (“RGP”) for .net and .com until such time
as fully-tested RGP is implemented across all registries. At present, the IPC has no further details
on the VGRS amended proposal.
Nevertheless, the IPC believes that any RGP implemented by VGRS on an
interim basis would have to be the functional and operational equivalent of the
RGP proposed by ICANN staff in order to satisfy the condition precedent set
forth in the preceding paragraph. To
this end, the IPC supports the Task Force’s recommendation with regard to the
requirement of a fully functional RGP and cannot comment on the feasibility of
the interim RGP proposed by VGRS.
The IPC
disagrees with the Transfer Task Force recommendations on notice and
transparency. To make public or to
disclose to the registrant the identity of the WLS subscriber would provide an
incentive for a bad-faith registrant to continue renewing a registration. The interest in notice and transparency can
be fully met through the requirement that registrars verify previously
submitted contact data of a WLS subscriber before effectuating the transfer of
a registration to that subscriber (at which point the WLS subscriber contact
data will appear in WHOIS).
PRICING:
With
regard to the issue of pricing, the IPC again notes that a representative of
VGRS stated that the WLS proposal was being amended to revise the pricing model
in the WLS proposal. Specifically, the
VGRS representative stated that the pricing model set forth in its WLS proposal
would be revised to remove the rebate structure originally put forward in its
proposal and that VGRS would charge all registrars a consistent flat $24.00 fee
per subscription. The IPC would like to
note its appreciation for the continued willingness of VGRS to revisit its WLS
proposal based on community input.
While taking no specific position on pricing, the IPC believes that the
pricing for WLS should be structured in order to discourage gaming of the WLS
by domain name speculators and cybersquatters.
The
IPC wishes to point out that the position set out above is without
prejudice to the need for a uniform transfers and deletion policy, but reflects
the views we would like communicated to the Task Force by its July 22, 2002
deadline (since we know a uniform policy cannot be completed by then).
Appendix D. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
“ccTLD - Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>Alternate
"ccTLD - Rick Shera" <rjs@lojo.co.nz>
"ISP - Tony Holmes" <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com> Alternate
"ISP - Mark McFadden" <mcf@uwm.edu>
"IPC - Nick Wood" <nick.wood@nom-iq.com> Resigned July,2002-to be
replaced
"BC - Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com>
Chair
"BC - Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>
"Registrars - Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
"gTLD - Christine Russo" <crusso@verisign.com>
"GA - Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
"David Safran" <dsafran@nixonpeabody.com>
"NonCom - James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
"NonCom - Erick Iriarte" <faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe>
"Sloan Gaon" <sgaon@registrypro.com>
"Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> replacing Sloan Goan, effective July,2002
Secretarial assistance:
"BC Transfer Help - Marie Juliano" <mjuliano@att.com
"DNSO.Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
Appendix E: LINKS to SUPPORTING MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
SUBMISSIONS on WLS
Redemption Grace
period - 14 February 2002, ICANN staff posted a proposal to
establish a RGP
http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
Technical steering group's Implementation proposal
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm
RGP presented at ACCRA - summary of comments
http://www.icann.org/accra/redemption-topic.htm
VGRS's current proposal grows out of a WLS proposal that it sent to the DNSO
Registrars Constituency on 30 December 2001.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf
After comments from that constituency and others, VGRS revised its proposal
on 28 January.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-28jan02.pdf
After additional discussions with registrars and others, VGRS revised the
proposal a second time and submitted it with the 21 March 2002 request for
amendment to Appendix G.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf
Whereas, on 21 March 2002 VeriSign, Inc., the operator of the .com and .net
registries, requested amendments to the registry agreements for those
top-level domains to allow it to conduct a twelve-month trial of a proposed
wait-listing service (WLS) to be offered through accredited registrars for
an annual fee;
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#02.53
Whereas, in 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 a status report on that review, with the status report
to include any recommendations concerning VeriSign's request to modify the
.com and .net agreements to allow it to provide the WLS;
Whereas, the DNSO's Transfers Task Force presented to the Board a status
report giving preliminary findings and recommendations on WLS, but requiring
additional analysis and discussion within the DNSO before the report is
finalized;
DNSO Status report
Local copy:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020604.NCTransferTF-report.html
ICANN reference :
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/dnso-deletes-report-10jun02.htm
Whereas, as contemplated by resolution 02.55 ICANN has received various
public comments on the WLS on a web-based public comment forum;
ICANN public forum comments
http://forum.icann.org/wls/
Whereas, a Public Forum was held on 27 June 2002 at ICANN's meetings in
Bucharest,
Preliminary report ICANN meetings in Bucharest
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm
Verisign WLS proposal presented at Bucharest public forum
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm
during which VeriSign gave a presentation of the WLS in which it
constructively proposed changes to accommodate concerns expressed in
community comments; the DNSO Transfers Task Force summarized its preliminary
findings and recommendations; and several members of the Internet community
gave their views on WLS;
Transfer Task Force pp presentation Bucharest
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-TransferTF-final.ppt
Overview of WLS presented by Grant Forsyth in Bucharest
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-VRSN-proposed-WLS.ppt
Whereas, the Board, although very anxious to ensure that action on
VeriSign's request proceeds without unnecessary delay, believes that its
consideration of the request would be assisted by receiving the final report
of the DNSO's bottom-up consensus-development effort, including its views on
the modifications recently proposed by VeriSign;
Resolved [02.84] that the Names Council is requested to provide, no later
than 26 July 2002, its final recommendations, with its supporting rationale
and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS
request (including the modifications made on 27 June 2002), so that the
Board may act shortly thereafter.
INPUT
Transfer TF deletions, solutions, and WLS draft updated for the Names
Council meeting July 11, 2002
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/WLS-pres-Bucharest-update-nc.ppt
Public comments were open on the final report until July 22, 2002
Final report :
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html
The comments are found in:
Archives: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-deletes/Arc01/
A link was put on the ICANN web site during the Public comment period
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jul02.htm
Full archives of the Transfer Task Force are to be found in:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ NC Transfer (open 29 Oct
2001)
gTLD Statement (Revised).
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html
Two petitions were received:
1. http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html
This petition is mention in the public forum at
http://forum.icann.org/wls/
2. Presented to the Board in Bucharest on behalf of Magi Inc. at
http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/magi-petition.doc