RE: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

ICANN's General Counsel recommending WLS be approved in the face of obvious
consensus that it should *not* be approved is not surprising at all.  What
is more interesting is that VeriSign stock is up nearly 40% in the last two
days.  Just curious...does anyone know at exactly what time this report went
live on ICANN's website today?  Specifically, was it after the market close?

Best regards,

Jeff

--
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
jfield@aaaq.com <mailto:jfield@aaaq.com>
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Alexander
> Svensson
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:16 PM
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis
>
>
>
> General Counsel's Second Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services'
> Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement
> (http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm)
>
> Excerpts:
>
>   Should the VGRS be permitted to offer some form of WLS?
>
>   [...]
>   The approach followed in the case of .name [second-level domain e-mail
>   service] suggests that the WLS should be allowed, thereby giving
>   consumers an additional option, provided there are appropriate
>   safeguards in place to prevent the registry operator from abusing
>   its sole-source position to the detriment of consumers.
>   [...]
>
>   If so, what conditions, if any, should be required?
>
>   Assuming VGRS is permitted to offer some form of WLS, the question
>   arises what conditions (if any) should be required. In its report, the
>   DNSO task force suggested several, and some others have been agreed
>   by VGRS:
>
>   1. The WLS should only be introduced after the Redemption Grace Period
>      is in place.  [...]
>   2. No preferential treatment should be given to existing SnapNames
>      "SnapBack" reservations. [...]
>   3. Avoidance of registrar preferences through advance knowledge of
>      deletion. [...]
>   4. Transparency of reservations [...]
>   5. Pricing [...]
>      The price VGRS now proposes to charge for WLS reservations is US$24
>      per year (this is reduced from the US$40 it originally
> proposed), and
>      in view of the limited time of the trial, the uncertain volume of
>      reservations that will be sold, and need to amortize start-up costs
>      over one year, the proposed price appears to be plausibly cost-based
>      (accounting for the risk of limited consumer interest). [...]
>    6. Trial period [...]
>
> --
> 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