ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-transfer]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-transfer] Re: NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLS presented to theICANN Board


Title: Re: NC Transfer Task Force final report on WLS present
Thank you, Phillip. It is helpful to have the complete report. I appreciate all of the hard work that has gone into this consideration.

Stuart

At 2:33 PM +0200 7/29/02, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Vint and Stuart,
further to the Board request please find below the NC report on the WLS. The report can also be found at the following URL:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/NCFinal-report-WLS.html
Philip Sheppard
Names Council Chair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Final Report of the Transfer Task Force on the WLS Proposal Presented to
                           the DNSO Names Council

                          Wednesday, July 24, 2002

Submitted by Marilyn Cade, Chair

On behalf of the Transfer Task Force

The Final Report of the Transfer Task on the Verisign WLS proposal is
forwarded to the Names Council for discussion and vote.  The Final Report
includes the following information and elements:

I.  Executive Summary

II.  Background on Recommendations and Recommendations

III.  Report and Supporting Materials

A.     Request to undertake comment/consensus on WLS, including Board
request that the TF present a final report, taking into consideration
Verisign?s agreement to provide substantive modifications in their request
for approval for the WLS service

B.     Summary of the Work of the TF which describes

1.      Documentation on extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted
parties

2.      Outreach undertaken/input received in various public fora (including
links to

3.      All substantive submissions to achieve adequate representation of
those likely to be impacted

4.      Statement on nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition
to the proposed policy recommendation

IV.  Additional materials from Task Force:  Link to PowerPoint Presentation
presented to DNSO Names Council, which offers a summary to the community,
including the draft recommendations of the TF

V.                 Separate statements from constituencies

VI.              Action Requested

VII.            Appendices



I.  Executive Summary:

The Transfer Task Force (Task Force or TF) was requested to consider and
provide comments on the introduction of a wait listing service,  based on
technology/services provided by SnapNames and provided by the Verisign
Registry. Following Bucharest, the  Task Force based its discussions and

considerations on  the WLS as proposed to ICANN in March, modified by the
three changes offered by Verisign, in Bucharest. Extensive discussions and
outreach efforts were undertaken by the Task Force; including presentations
by both SnapNames and Verisign. Extensive outreach was undertaken via
various public fora; conference calls which were open to interested parties
to provide input to the Task Force.  Efforts were made to document the range
of comments and input received; task force members read the submissions via
the various fora and reviewed the petitions posted, as well studying the
extensive submissions of SnapNames providing clarification, explanation, and
their views. The Task Force developed and published two recommendations -
one preferred recommendation, which recommends denying the WLS service, and
an alternate recommendation which describes those conditions which the Task
Force recommends, should the Board approve the WLS service.

The recommendations are forwarded to the Names Council  for their discussion
and approval at their meeting on July 24, 2002. The Task Force asks that
their recommendations be voted on, affirmatively, and forwarded to the
Board.  The Task Force is available to respond to further questions and
issues that the Council might have in order to support the Names  Council
providing a final report to the Board by July 26, 2002, based on the Task
Force final report.



II.  Background on Recommendations and Recommendations

The Task Force developed and presented two recommendations.   The vote for
both Recommendations is a matter of record, and is attached in Appendix A.
The DNSO Secretariat holds the vote details.  The first Recommendation,
[I.], is the preferred recommendation of the Task Force. The second
recommendation [II] is presented to the Names Council, with the
recommendation that both recommendations be approved, and sent to the Board,
since it is the understanding of the Task Force that the Board requested
advise and comment on the WLS from the Task Force.  The second
recommendation notes that should the board approve the WLS request, that
certain conditions should be established, and provides suggested conditions.

The recommendations are presented here, as part of the final report. Both
recommendations I and II have sub-elements. Each sub-element was voted on
separately.  The Task Force is presenting the details of the vote rather
than commenting individually on each outcome, letting the votes speak for
themselves.

Recommendations of the Transfer Task Force related to Verisign WLS: (Also
attached as Appendix A in original form) Abbreviations are used in this
section as follows:

RGP: Redemption Grace Period              WLS: Wait Listing Service

----------------------------------
I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:

A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce
the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC

Accepted by all

B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its
agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6 YES          2 NO

C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for
12 months.
Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
No: gTLD
Abstain: NonC, IP
5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS

I.  Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6 YES              2 NO

II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF prime
recommendation.

Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
conditions:

A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
establishment of a standard deletion practise.
Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
No:gTLD
7 YES 1 NO

B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
deletion practise
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
considered separately from WLS.

(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):

1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
5 YES



2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes: IP, NonC
2 YES

3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes: gTLD
1 YES



C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).

C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the Registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
Yes: GA, NonC,
2 YES

C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
Abstain: gTLD,
5 YES         1 Abstain

D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to
who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP
Abstain: gTLD
6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain

E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations
for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
5 YES        3 Abstain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



III.  Report and Supporting Materials

A.     Request to undertake comment/consensus on WLS, including Board
request that the Task Force present a final report, taking into
consideration the Board request that the Task Force take into account
Verisign?s substantive modifications to their request for approval of the
WLS.

The Status Report regarding Deletions, Solutions and WLS, dated 4 June 2002,
describes the request received by the TF. The ICANN Board referred this
matter to the Transfer Task Force, via the Names Council, via Resolution
[02.53]. The Names Council referred this matter to the TF on 24 June 2002.
Via Resolution [02.55] the Board invited public comment and established a
web forum for such comment.

After extensive examination and dialogue related to the issue of WLS, the
Task Force presented a preliminary preview of its findings, and draft
recommendations at the ICANN Bucharest Names Council meeting. This
presentation, and draft recommendations were further presented to the public
during the Public Forum, on 27 June 02. During their presentation at the
Public Forum, Verisign made certain substantive statements about possible
modifications in their proposal. SnapNames and other supporters made
extensive statements of support to the VS/SnapNames/WLS proposal. Both
before and following the meeting?s Public Forum on WLS, ICANN?s web Comment
Forum on WLS received comments, which are both opposing and supporting WLS.
The ICANN forum documents just over 500 comments received.

The Task Force took note of the possible substantive changes proposed by
Verisign during the Public Comment period.  In addition, the Board asked the
Task Force to include its views regarding these modifications proposed by
Verisign. The TF requested verification of the modifications in the Verisign
proposal to ICANN. E-mail from Chuck Gomes, Verisign Registry
representative, dated Tuesday, 9 July 2002, verified the statement made in
his presentation, but noted that the actual offer to ICANN had not been
modified, pending determination that there was receptivity to such changes.
The three changes were 1) implement of an interim grace period until
official is implemented 2) no favored treatment of Snap Names holders 3)
pricing to be simplified by removing rebates and charging one fixed price of
$24 to registrars per subscription year.

The TF met further to consider further ICANN Web Forum input, GA
submissions, TF discussions and submissions to the TF itself via emails sent
directly to the Chair, which were sent forward to the TF archives, Public
Forum input, as well as these modifications to the VS WLS proposal. Taking
into account this information, modifications were made to the TF
recommendations to reflect the substantive changes, which Verisign noted it
was willing to make in its request for approval. The Draft Final Report,
presented in Bucharest to the Names Council and to the Public Forum, were
revised, updated, and posted for an additional 8 day of comment, via the
DNSO web site, with linkage from the ICANN site. Announcements were sent to
all constituencies, the GA, and published by ICANN of this additional period
of comment.

Links are provided in a latter section to all substantive comments received.

B.   Summary of the work of the Task Force, which describes:

1. Documentation of the extent of agreement and disagreement among impact
parties:

Comments received, including via the conference call outreach, and in the
various Public Fora can be roughly grouped as follows:

         Responses from  registrars and others who presently offer services
similar to WLS at the registrar level which are specific to the points and
oppose WLS at the Verisign Registry Level

         Responses from SnapNames and Verisign, which are supportive of the
WLS at the Verisign Registry Level,

         Responses from a group of entities who specifically support the
SnapNames proposal and spoke in support of WLS.

         Responses from parties who object to the WLS proposal at the
Verisign Registry level which include other constituencies and GA
submissions

         Response from one constituency which was neutral on WLS but
supported standard redemption grace period.

         Comments included negative comments about the costs of such
services or about the increase in costs to users.

         Responses from parties who object to WLS at the Registry level,
but appear to be focused on the involvement of Verisign the Registrar and
negative experiences they have had related to transfers, deletions or other
processes which are not related to WLS itself

         Two petitions (links provided in a later section) which are
opposed to WLS at the Verisign Registry level.  Signatories are well
identified in one petition; the second petition, which has over 3000
signatures, is less documented.

         Responses contained in many of the above responses and in the
constituency and GA submissions, which support the need for a uniform
redemption process and a standard deletion process.

   + The gTLD constituency provided a statement challenging the
     ?jurisdiction? of the TF and explaining that the TF report ?delves into
     matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task force, including,
     1) whether a Registry Service can be introduced by a Registry Operator;
     and (2) the price of a Registry Service.  It believes that such issues
     are related to the business of the individual registry and are more*e
     appropriate for the market place to regulate rather than the policy
     making body of ICANN. Their comments are forwarded as Appendix B in
     entirety.  Their comments were taken into account and discussed within
     the TF several times; and consultation was taken from the ICANN
     counsel.

         A very few other comments from individuals who responded
questioned the ICANN consideration of approval of services at the registry
level, and ICANN?s role in setting costs.

2. Documentation of Extent of Agreement and disagreement among affected
parties:

Areas of disagreement:

The Task Force found that there are significant differences between the
parties most directly affected by the introduction of this service-some
registrars, and providers of competitive services similar to WLS at the
registrar level who do not support the WLS at the Registry level, and
SnapNames, Verisign, and a group of respondents who identify themselves as
being able to benefit from the certainty of obtaining a WLS at the sole
source level who support WLS at the Registry level.

Again, the gTLD constituency and a few other commenters question whether the
policy making supporting organization of ICANN should be reviewing this
process via a DNSO TF or should be involved at all.

Areas of Agreement:

There is support in the community for both a uniform redemption grace period
and the establishment of a standard deletions period.

Note: Within the Task Force, specific to these two items, unanimous
agreement within the Task Force exists for the need for a uniform redemption
grace period.

Agreement exists for a standard deletions period, although there was
disagreement within the task force about the timing of such implementation.
Five task force members supported the establishment of a standard deletions
period at the same time as WLS and implemented before WLS. The remaining
three support the need for a standard deletions period, but two support that
it need not be in place before WLS is implemented, while one supports
considering it separately.

3. Outreach undertaken/input received in various public for a (including a
list of links where comments are achieved)

This topic has been the topic of discussion on the GA for several months.
After the formal referral to the Task Force, public forums were opened by
ICANN and the Task Force held several ?open conference? calls to take
further input to the Task Force.  The ICANN Board further held a public
forum session at the Bucharest ICANN meetings where Verisign presented, the
Task Force made a short statement of its recommendations and rationale, and
attendees at the meeting made several comments.   The GA, BC, IPC, Registrar
and Registry Constituencies have all submitted written comments, at various
stages of the comment process. Verisign and SnapNames both submitted
extensive documents, which addressed many of the questions raised on the
comment forums.  The Final Recommendations of the Task Force were further
posted for another 8 day public comment period.

4. Substantive Submissions to achieve adequate representation of those
likely to be impacted

Links are provided to the various public forums.   The Task Force notes that
the submissions are available for review by any interested party.

n      See appendix E for the list of links





5. Statement on Nature and Intensity of reasoned support and opposition to
the proposed policy recommendation

The Task force identified bipolar views on the approval of the WLS at the
Verisign Registry service.

Strong support exists for the conditions of establishment of a standard
redemption grace period, as described in the Recommendation II, and for the
establishment of a standard deletions period.

V.  PowerPoint Presentation Presented to the Names Council in Bucharest with
draft recommendations and background and Status Report of the work of the
Task Force

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020711.TFtransfer-WLS-update.ppt

VI. Statements from Constituency/other entities  -- included as Appendix B
and C

        Registry Constituency Statement

        IPC Statement



VII. Action Requested:

The Task Force forwards the Final Report with our final recommendations,
supported by the vote of the Task Force members, to the Names Council for
their discussion and vote and for transmittal to the Board, supported by the
vote of the Names Council. The Final Report provides the documentation
needed to support the recommendations of the Task Force

We therefore recommend to the Names Council that the recommendations receive
a supporting vote by the Names Council and be forwarded to the Board.
Should any further clarification be needed, the Task Force is prepared to
respond. Several members of the Task Force are Names Council members;
however, the full Task Force stands ready to respond as needed to any
questions.

Appendices attached

A: Recommendations of the Task Force with Voting Results

B: Registry Constituency Statement

C:  IPC Statement

D. Task Force Membership

E. Links to the Archives, Forums, submissions

A   RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE

The ballot, which follows, is the final ballot for the e-mail vote of the
Transfer Task Force on the Task Force recommendations on the WLS.

Recommendations were modified in a conference call meeting, July 22, 2002
where all members of the Task Force were represented except for the GA.

The Task Force representatives are asked to return their vote by private
e-mail directly to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org

by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 2:00 pm (14:00) EST.

The Task Force is presented with two recommendations. You are asked to vote
on both and on each sub-element by putting [x] next to your choice.

I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:

Please vote on this:

A. The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
Yes
No
Abstain

B. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain

C. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
Yes
No
Abstain

I. Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes
No
Abstain

II. Recommendation:
Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
conditions:

Please vote on this.

A. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
establishment of a standard deletion practice.
Yes
No
Abstain

B. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion practice
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
considered separately from WLS.

VOTE ON ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE:

1) Standard Deletion practice should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes
No
Abstain

2) Standard deletion practice should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes
No
Abstain

3) Standard deletion practice should be considered separately.
Yes
NO
Abstain

TWO OPTIONS ARE PRESENTED, for C, C. 1 and C. 2  BUT ONLY VOTE FOR ONE

C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the Registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.

                                                  OR

C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes
No
Abstain

D. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
{Transparency}
Yes
No
Abstain

E. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes
No
Abstain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Please fill in the following information:
NAME:

Please identify name of Constituency or GA:

Return your ballot by Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 2:00 pm EST (14:00 EST)
to:
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org



TRANSFER TASK FORCE VOTING RESULTS



. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:

A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce
the
proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
Accepted by all

B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its
agreement to
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6 YES          2 NO

C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for
12 months.
Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
No: gTLD
Abstain: NonC, IP
5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS

I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP, gTLD
6 YES              2 NO

II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF prime
recommendation.

Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
conditions:

A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
proven
(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
establishment of a standard deletion practise.
Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
No:gTLD
7 YES 1 NO

B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
deletion practise
be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
considered separately from WLS.

 of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
Yes: GA, NonC, (CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):

1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS and
implemented before WLS.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
5 YES

2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
place before
WLS is implemented.
Yes: IP, NonC
2 YES

3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
Yes: gTLD
1 YES

C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).

C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the Registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant
2 YES

C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
Abstain: gTLD,
5 YES         1 Abstain

D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to
who has placed
a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
No: IP
Abstain: gTLD
6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain

E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations
for
approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
5 YES        3 Abstain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Appendix B:  Registry Constituency Statement:

gTLD Statement (Revised).
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html





Appendix C:  IPC Statement on the Proposed Transfer Task Force
Recommendations on WLS



THE PROBLEM:



The IPC strongly believes that the matter of  unintentional deletions is a
problem that does not distinguish among particular registries, registrars or
registrants.  While some inadvertent deletions occur because of registrant
failure to renew, too many are due to registry or registrar error or
misconduct.   It is an industry-wide concern, one that rightly should be
addressed at the ICANN-level as a matter of policy, and whose solution
should be applicable across the spectrum of gTLD registrars and registries.



Names associated with intellectual property rights are particularly
attractive to theft by hijackers and speculators who have been known to
modify information to make it appear as though a request for deletion of the
domain name has been made by the registrar.  A piecemeal solution of
individual business models, such as the proposed WLS, does not by itself
address the concerns of intellectual property owners, who, like ICANN, are
particularly troubled about the effects of accidental deletions on consumers
and businesses that are increasingly relying on the Internet to service
their commercial needs.



TR-TF RECOMMENDATIONS:



After reviewing the proposed recommendations posted by the Transfer Task
Force, the IPC has the following comments:



Since it appears that the TF cannot reach consensus regarding the proposed
WLS, the TF should present the Board with a summary of the divergent views.
The IPC does not support presenting an alternative recommendation regarding
WLS to the Board.  It is the IPC?s position that the Task Force is charged
with providing, if possible, a clear consensus position on the WLS proposal
to the Board.  If no consensus has developed, the Task Force is duty bound
to advise the Board of the lack of consensus and provide the Board with a
summary of the various divergent viewpoints on the issues.  Accordingly, the
IPC urges the Transfers Task Force to consider adopting a single clear
recommendation to the Board.   We turn now to our specific comments
regarding the Task Forces Recommendations.



THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY:



The IPC agrees with the Task Force recommendation that the proposed
redemption grace period is thus far the best and most practical insurance
policy yet derived to handle these and similar problems.  The IPC strongly
urges that implementation of the Redemption Grace Period must precede any
implementation taken on WLS.  Provided this condition precedent is met, the
IPC does not object to the proposed WLS.



The IPC notes that a representative of Verisign Global Registry (?VGRS?)
presented amendments to its WLS proposal during its presentation to the
ICANN Board at the recent ICANN meeting in Bucharest.  Specifically, the
VGRS representative stated that VGRS would implement an ?interim? Redemption
Grace Period (?RGP?) for .net and .com until such time as fully-tested RGP
is implemented across all registries.  At present, the IPC has no further
details on the VGRS amended proposal.  Nevertheless, the IPC believes that
any RGP implemented by VGRS on an interim basis would have to be the
functional and operational equivalent of the RGP proposed by ICANN staff in
order to satisfy the condition precedent set forth in the preceding
paragraph.  To this end, the IPC supports the Task Force?s recommendation
with regard to the requirement of a fully functional RGP and cannot comment
on the feasibility of the interim RGP proposed by VGRS.



NOTICE AND TRANSPARENCY:



The IPC disagrees with the Transfer Task Force recommendations on notice and
transparency.  To make public or to disclose to the registrant the identity
of the WLS subscriber would provide an incentive for a bad-faith registrant
to continue renewing a registration.   The interest in notice and
transparency can be fully met through the requirement that registrars verify
previously submitted contact data of a WLS subscriber before effectuating
the transfer of a registration to that subscriber (at which point the WLS
subscriber contact data will appear in WHOIS).



PRICING:



With regard to the issue of pricing, the IPC again notes that a
representative of VGRS stated that the WLS proposal was being amended to
revise the pricing model in the WLS proposal.  Specifically, the VGRS
representative stated that the pricing model set forth in its WLS proposal
would be revised to remove the rebate structure originally put forward in
its proposal and that VGRS would charge all registrars a consistent flat
$24.00 fee per subscription.  The IPC would like to note its appreciation
for the continued willingness of VGRS to revisit its WLS proposal based on
community input.    While taking no specific position on pricing, the IPC
believes that the pricing for WLS should be structured in order to
discourage gaming of the WLS by domain name speculators and cybersquatters.



The IPC wishes to point out that the position set out above is without
prejudice to the need for a uniform transfers and deletion policy, but
reflects the views we would like communicated to the Task Force by its July
22, 2002 deadline (since we know a uniform policy cannot be completed by
then).

Appendix D. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP



 ?ccTLD - Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>Alternate
"ccTLD - Rick Shera" <rjs@lojo.co.nz>
"ISP - Tony Holmes" <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com> Alternate
"ISP - Mark McFadden" <mcf@uwm.edu>
"IPC - Nick Wood" <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>  Resigned July,2002-to be replaced
"BC - Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com> Chair
"BC - Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>
"Registrars - Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
"gTLD - Christine Russo" <crusso@verisign.com>
"GA - Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
"David Safran" <dsafran@nixonpeabody.com>
"NonCom - James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
"NonCom - Erick Iriarte" <faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe>
"Sloan Gaon" <sgaon@registrypro.com>
"Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> replacing Sloan Goan, effective
July,2002

Secretarial assistance:
"BC Transfer Help - Marie Juliano" <mjuliano@att.com

"DNSO.Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org

Appendix E:  LINKS to SUPPORTING MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSIONS on WLS

Redemption Grace period - 14 February 2002, ICANN staff posted a proposal to
establish a RGP
http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
Technical steering group's Implementation proposal
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm
RGP presented at ACCRA - summary of comments
http://www.icann.org/accra/redemption-topic.htm

VGRS's current proposal grows out of a WLS proposal that it sent to the DNSO
Registrars Constituency on 30 December 2001.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf
After comments from that constituency and others, VGRS revised its proposal
on 28 January.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-28jan02.pdf
 After additional discussions with registrars and others, VGRS revised the
proposal a second time and submitted it with the 21 March 2002 request for
amendment to Appendix G.
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf
Whereas, on 21 March 2002 VeriSign, Inc., the operator of the .com and .net
registries, requested amendments to the registry agreements for those
top-level domains to allow it to conduct a twelve-month trial of a proposed
wait-listing service (WLS) to be offered through accredited registrars for
an annual fee;
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#02.53
Whereas, in resolution 02.53 the Board requested the Names Council to
coordinate within the DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the
deletion of domain names and possible solutions for those issues and to
submit to the Board a status report on that review, with the status report
to include any recommendations concerning VeriSign's request to modify the
.com and .net agreements to allow it to provide the WLS;
Whereas, the DNSO's Transfers Task Force presented to the Board a status
report giving preliminary findings and recommendations on WLS, but requiring
additional analysis and discussion within the DNSO before the report is
finalized;
DNSO Status report
Local copy:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020604.NCTransferTF-report.html
ICANN reference :
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/dnso-deletes-report-10jun02.htm
Whereas, as contemplated by resolution 02.55 ICANN has received various
public comments on the WLS on a web-based public comment forum;
ICANN public forum comments
http://forum.icann.org/wls/
Whereas, a Public Forum was held on 27 June 2002 at ICANN's meetings in
Bucharest,

Preliminary report ICANN meetings in Bucharest
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm

Verisign WLS proposal presented at Bucharest public forum
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm
during which VeriSign gave a presentation of the WLS in which it
constructively proposed changes to accommodate concerns expressed in
community comments; the DNSO Transfers Task Force summarized its preliminary
findings and recommendations; and several members of the Internet community
gave their views on WLS;

Transfer Task Force pp presentation Bucharest
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-TransferTF-final.ppt

Overview of WLS presented by Grant Forsyth in Bucharest
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-VRSN-proposed-WLS.ppt
Whereas, the Board, although very anxious to ensure that action on
VeriSign's request proceeds without unnecessary delay, believes that its
consideration of the request would be assisted by receiving the final report
of the DNSO's bottom-up consensus-development effort, including its views on
the modifications recently proposed by VeriSign;
Resolved [02.84] that the Names Council is requested to provide, no later
than 26 July 2002, its final recommendations, with its supporting rationale
and any separate positions of DNSO constituencies, on the VeriSign WLS
request (including the modifications made on 27 June 2002), so that the
Board may act shortly thereafter.

INPUT

Transfer TF deletions, solutions, and WLS draft updated for the Names
Council meeting July 11, 2002
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/WLS-pres-Bucharest-update-nc.ppt

Public comments were open on the final report until July 22, 2002
Final report :
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html

The comments are found in:
Archives: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-deletes/Arc01/

A link was put on the ICANN web site during the Public comment period
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jul02.htm

Full archives of the Transfer Task Force  are to be found in:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ NC Transfer (open 29 Oct
2001)
gTLD Statement (Revised).
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00391.html

Two petitions were received:
1. http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/petition.html
This petition is mention in the public forum at
http://forum.icann.org/wls/

2. Presented to the Board in Bucharest on behalf of Magi Inc. at
http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/magi-petition.doc


--

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.org


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>