RE: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis
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?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Alexander
> 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
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html