Re: [ga] WLS input

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

Thomas,

In Montevideo last year, Verisign invited a few members of the community to
a consultation in order to gather input as to how they could best solve the
expiration of domain name problems that they were facing. A number of
proposals were tabled as a result of this process - but were rejected by
Verisign with the exception of the SnapNames proposal, which they endorsed.

A large part of the consultation centered around the basic principles that
should be fulfilled by any proposal put forward. I have reproduced them
below with the hope that they will assist the efforts of the GA as you
describe below. Further information on these proposals can be found at
http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/

If there are any questions concerning the status of these principles or the
intent behind them, please feel free to drop me a line and I will do what I
can to clarify.

Thanks,

-rwr

Principles


The process of deleting registered names and making them available for
re-registration must be conducted in accordance with a set of operating
principles. These recommendations that follow are offered in accordance with
the following principles;



  1.. Verisign Global Registry Services must operate within the obligations
of its operating agreement with ICANN.


  2.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must not accrue undue
advantage to any individual, registrar or registry.


  3.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must be conducted in
accordance with established ICANN policy.


  4.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes should be determined by
VGRS in consultation with ICANN and the community.


  5.. The determination by VGRS of any new deletion and re-registration
processes must include an analysis of the root cause of the problems faced
by the registry.


  6.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must allow Registrars
to continue to operate in a competitive manner. This specifically refers to
the capability of Registrars to determine their business model, pricing and
technical environment.


  7.. Registrars must be able to continue to use the existing RRP protocol
for the normal shared registration system processes.


  8.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes must not impact on the
performance of the normal shared registration system processes. Normal SRS
processes can be defined as the creation of "new" domains, modification of
existing domain name records, inter-registrar domain name transfers and
deletion of domain names.   Not normal is defined as the land rush for
deleted domains the instant they become available. The interim procedures
currently employed by VGRS as a temporary solution to this issue are also
not defined as normal processes[i].


  9.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes MUST be fair to all
ICANN Accredited Registrars


  10.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes SHOULD work within the
current registries protocol such as RRP or EPP.


  11.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes SHOULD NOT encourage
the use of the CHECK DOMAIN command to discover available names in the pool
of names to be deleted.


  12.. Any new deletion and re-registration processes SHOULD NOT give a
greater benefit to a registrar that uses more RRP Connections over a
registrar with a single RRP connection.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----




----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input


> On 2002-01-18 05:58:20 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> >He welcomed feedback from a proposed workgroup, though the voting
> >on that dissapeared for smoe reason, nontheless itis in my opinion
> >a chance to at least be heard in this case, whether they will use
> >our opinion is ofcourse a totally different matter.
>
> There was no vote which could have disappeared.  Also, I still do
> not see what benefite a discussion on a separate list would have
> over a discussion on this list.
>
> However, may I suggest that you just go into document production
> mode yourself over the week-end, and try to write down a brief (one
> page) summary of what you believe to be the consensus of the GA on
> the WLS and secondary market topics?
>
> You could submit this to the GA as a draft which can then go through
> some iterations of debate and consensus-finding.
>
> I wish you much luck with this, and I'm really looking forward for
> your results.
>
> (I tried last week and gave up - I was not able to find any
> substantial consensus beyond an apparently wide-spread perception
> that WLS is somehow "bad", and beyond some points about which
> consensus even included Chuck Gomes. In particular, I was not able
> to isolate a consistent set of requirements for a possible new
> process, which is what Rick Wesson requested. I then ended up with
> the conclusion that the best thing I could do would be to continue
> my general ga-summary series.)
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html