[ga] FYI: WLS discussion in Bucharest

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

ICANN Bucharest Meeting Topic: VGRS Proposal for Wait-Listing Service 
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm

One topic that will be discussed at the ICANN Public Forum to be held in 
Bucharest, Romania on Thursday, 27 June 2002 [1], is a proposal by VeriSign 
Global Registry Services (VGRS) to establish, on a twelve-month trial 
basis, a "Wait-Listing Service" (WLS) for the .com and .net top-level 
domains. At its meeting on 22 April 2002, the ICANN Board invited 
comments from the Internet community [2], both at the Bucharest Public 
Forum and over the Internet, regarding whether VGRS's proposal should 
be approved.

...
Background and Summary of the WLS Proposal
...
History of Discussion of WLS Proposal
...
Legal Considerations
...

Special Topics for Discussion

Several concerns have been raised by the Registrar Constituency and 
others regarding VGRS's request for an amendment allowing charging 
for WLS on a twelve-month trial basis. Some of these concerns are:

1. Displacement of existing registrar-level competition. Currently, 
  different registrars offer a variety of services to customers waiting 
  for domain-name registrations to be deleted. These different services, 
  which are currently offered on a competitive basis, all work on the 
  basis of promptly registering names once they are returned to the 
  available pool after deletion. Because the registry-level WLS would 
  divert deleted names from being returned to the available pool, it 
  would "trump" all of the competitive registrar-level services.   

  In general, the introduction of registrar-level competition has been 
  extremely successful, and care should be taken before a registry 
  operator is allowed to displace that competition by exercising 
  abilities it has acquired by virtue of being designated the registry 
  operator.   

  In the specific case of WLS, however, it is quite possible that some 
  of the technically harmful effects of the registrar-level services 
  (such as the high registry loads caused by "add storms") may justify 
  instituting a registry-level WLS. It is also quite possible that 
  the consumer benefits of having a guaranteed effective reservation 
  (which can not be done at the registrar level) make it appropriate 
  to allow registry-level WLS. It does not appear to me that a 
  consensus position on these issues has yet developed in the community. 

  Comments are invited on any technical advantages or disadvantages 
  of introducing a registry-level WLS on a trial basis. 

2. Selective "grandfathering." Objections have been raised to the 
  preferential transition arrangements proposed for the current
  SnapBack service, but not for any of the current services with which 
  it competes. Since only some registrars are currently offering the 
  SnapBack service, this proposed preference raises questions as to 
  whether equivalent access would be accorded to all registrars. 
  Comments are invited on what arrangements are appropriate to 
  accommodate arrangements that consumers have made with the existing 
  registrar-level services.   

3. Basis for pricing. Many in the community believe that the price for 
  the proposed WLS service should be limited to a cost-plus-reasonable-profit 
  basis. Registrars, in particular, have indicated that the proposed 
  price is several times likely costs. Maximum-price limits are intended 
  to ensure that a registry operator does not abuse the sole-source 
  position it achieves through its registry agreement with ICANN. Making 
  judgments about appropriate maximum prices requires consideration of 
  many factors, such as whether any effective market-based mechanism 
  will be present for constraining price. On the other hand, the argument 
  that the only true market test of the appropriateness of the product and 
  its costs is its reception by potential purchasers would support VGRS's 
  suggestion for a trial period after which a more informed evaluation 
  could be made.  

Community comments on the above concerns are specially invited, as are 
comments on other concerns that are not mentioned above.

In addition, the ICANN Board would appreciate comments on the following 
additional topics:

4. Standards for consideration of proposed new charges for registry services. 
  Is the framework outlined above in "Considerations in Evaluating Proposed 
  New Registry Services" [3] appropriate? If not, what adjustments to this 
  approach should be made? Are there additional factors that should be 
  considered? How can the process for introducing new registry services best 
  be streamlined while still protecting the legitimate interests of others 
  affected? What role should the DNSO have [4]?  

5. Effects on the larger problem of name deletions. The current system for 
  handling deletions of names in the uTLDs is the source of many complaints. 
  Some domain-name registrants have suffered from inadvertent deletions, 
  while other would-be registrants are frustrated at delays in deletion of 
  expired names. Comments are invited on the relationship and likely effects 
  of the WLS proposal on these problems. 

...
Links to Documents
...

[1] http://www.icann.org/bucharest/index.html#27June
[2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#VeriSignWLSProposal
[3] http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm#ConsiderationsinEvaluatingProposedNewRegistryServices
[4] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00183.html

Regards,
/// Alexander

--
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