[registrars] 18 Registrars Endorse WLS Implementation

[jim.foley@neteka.com]

March 7, 2002

Rick Wesson (wessorh@ar.com)
Registrars Constituency

Chuck Gomes (wls@verisign.com)
VeriSign

Dear Messrs. Wesson and Gomes:

We, the undersigned ICANN-accredited registrars, none of whom utilize our
connections to VeriSign Global Registry Service to give preferential access
to any customers over any other customers, appreciate this opportunity to
provide our feedback on VGRS' domain name Wait List Service (WLS), which has
recently been released for final comment in a modified form.  Per VeriSign's
invitation to submit our comments, we are, as instructed, submitting our
comments through "one of the DNSO constituencies" -- in this case, the
Registrars Constituency, in the person of Rick Wesson.  Our point of contact
is Jim Foley of Neteka, who may be reached at jim.foley@neteka.com
<mailto:jim.foley@neteka.com.

Our industry, now through its first stage of growth, is facing a number of
issues challenging its capability to further grow and mature while meeting
the needs of all users.  This is particularly true with respect to the issue
of deleting domain names-this "secondary" market of .com and .net names, in
reality, will shortly become the primary market, as the inventory of
reasonably usable new names further depletes and customer's choices will be
principally from the previously registered names now deleting back into
availability.

At present, however, the aggressive competition for deleting names-by
registrars, professional speculators, and third-party service providers-is
effectively freezing out the mainstream customer, who without sophisticated
equipment or even an understanding of how to find and secure a deleting
name, has no practical access to the new primary domain name marketplace.
Accordingly, a change is necessary to restore a level playing field for all
users, and to bring fair, equitable and practical access to all potential
registrants.  In this context, we offer our conditional support for the
modified WLS proposal (as published on January 29, 2002), on a
proof-of-concept basis intended to provide all concerned more information on
its viability as a long-term solution.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA		Tom D'Alleva
ChinaDNS, Beijing, China			Edward Lee
DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA		Michael Brunson
DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA	Austin Linford
DomainSite.com, Boston, MA, USA		Rick Zaniboni
Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel		Moshe Fogel
Go Daddy, Scotttsdale, AZ, USA			Bob Parsons
Namebay, Monaco				Patricia Husson
NameEngine, New York, NY, USA		Antony Van Couvering
NameScout, Ontario, Canada			Rob Hall
NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA			Gary Khachadoorian
NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados		Jason Heldeles
Neteka, Toronto, Canada			Greg Bertrand
VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA		Bruce Beckwith
Register.it, Bergamo, Italy			Bruno Piarulli
Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA	David Barbosa
SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel			LM Service
SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA		Anthony Bishop


cc:
Dan Halloran (halloran@icann.org)


Requested Information about the signatories:

What is the nature of the members of your group (e.g., individuals,
registrars, registries, trade organizations, etc.)?
ICANN-accredited Registrars

What is the total size of your membership?
Approximately 100 are operational

How many members of your group participated in the WLS feedback process
leading up to the final feedback provided?
4

How many members who contributed to the WLS feedback you provided to VGRS
are involved or planning to be involved in the process of directly or
indirectly using the VGRS batch delete system for registering just-deleted
names?
4

What efforts did your group make to reach out to members of your group who
did not participate in the WLS discussion process?
The group signing this letter is not a formal group per se.  It is a subset
of all registrars.  We made efforts to reach dozens of registrars to educate
them and make them aware of this issue.  We did not contact many members of
the Registrars Constituency, both because they are known to be submitting
their own comments and because they are not representative of all 100
registrars, particularly the over 70 who are not active paid members of the
Registrars Constituency.  (Indeed, some of the RC members compete with
VeriSign or have proposals competitive with VeriSign's WLS, or are in
disputes with VeriSign Registrar).