[council] NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLS presented to the ICANN Board
Vint and Stuart,
further to the Board request please find below the NC
report on the WLS. The report can also be found at the following
URL:
Philip Sheppard
Names Council Chair
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. + The gTLD constituency provided a statement challenging the ?jurisdiction? of the TF and explaining that the TF report ?delves into matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task force, including, 1) whether a Registry Service can be introduced by a Registry Operator; and (2) the price of a Registry Service. It believes that such issues are related to the business of the individual registry and are more*e appropriate for the market place to regulate rather than the policy making body of ICANN. Their comments are forwarded as Appendix B in entirety. Their comments were taken into account and discussed within the TF several times; and consultation was taken from the ICANN counsel. § 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 TRANSFER TASK FORCE VOTING RESULTS . 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 Appendix C: IPC Statement on the Proposed Transfer Task Force Recommendations on WLS 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. NOTICE AND TRANSPARENCY: 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
|