[registrars] comments on transfer task force WLS report (was: WLS - VOTING - Objection)
a) With VGRS' statement of "no favored treatment of Snap Names
holders", the most important barrier was removed from the WLS.
b) As Michael
we don't support that "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." (Section II, D).
c) We do, however, support that "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." (Section
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 22. juli 2002 14:52
> To: 'Nikolaj Nyholm'; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> Do either of you have any specific comments on any of the specific
> recommendations in the final report? It would be especially helpful if
> you could provide me with any thoughts you might have in that regard.
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> - Steven Wright
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com
> > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Nikolaj Nyholm
> > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:08 AM
> > To: 'email@example.com'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> > > So, at this time we DO NOT
> > > oppose the WLS
> > > and DO oppose the TF recommendations as a whole. We would
> > support the
> > > recommendation regarding the Redemptions Grace Period if it
> > > were separate
> > > from the rest of the report.
> > Ascio shares this position.
> > Regards,
> > Nikolaj