Re: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15
The WLS is relevant to two pending US patent applications owned by SnapNames:
20020091827 Domain name acquisition and management system and method
20020091703 Registry-integrated internet domain name acquisition system
If you would like to "recommend an appropriate process" and find yourself
liable for inducing patent infringement later down the road, you are welcome
to do so.
Presumably any recommendation that WLS be adopted across the board will
include appropriate notice of whether a license from SnapNames will be
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Fausett" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15
> Given the issues that arose in the context of approving the WLS (issues
> are now before the Reconsideration Committee), I wonder whether we ought to
> have Louis Touton provide us an early opinion on whether, in his judgment,
> the DNSO could mandate a uniform re-allocation policy across all gTLDs. We
> may not wish to step into the "reallocation" minefield if it's beyond the
> scope of what we can do. Any thoughts?
> -- Bret
> The language from the terms of reference is: "3. determine whether a
> delete and re-allocation process by gtld registries following receipt of a
> delete command from a registrar is desirable, and if so, recommend an
> appropriate process."
> Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
> > Issue 3: Registry delete process
> > --------------------------------
> > It was generally agreed that the redemption grace period provided much of
> > the transparency required by users and registrars.
> > Buchanan raised the concern that this transparency might still result in
> > storms of the sort that seriously impacted the VeriSign CNO registry in
> > 2001. As a result, registries might like to implement a re-registration
> > system. VeriSign's WLS was cited as an example. Buchanan agreed to ask
> > registry constituency for proposals on this topic.