Re: [registrars] Fw: [council] ICANN Board Action on WLS]

[Mike Lampson <lampson@iaregistry.com>]

Louis,

>> My opinions about how ICANN should act on VeriSign's WLS proposal are
>> detailed in the Second General Counsel's analysis posted yesterday.
>> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm>  Boiling down
>> the extended discussion there:  Enhancing consumer choice should be a
>> key goal that guides ICANN's actions.  VGRS proposed (as its registry
>> agreement allows) to offer a new service that gives consumers one
>> option. Your company's NICGenie service is another option for consumers.
>>   While some consumers may prefer the WLS (since it provides a guarantee
>> of being effective in obtaining a name if the name is deleted), other
>> consumers may prefer Parava's product or those of others (since unlike
>> the WLS they mostly require payment only if the name is actually deleted
>> and successfully obtained).  The choice should be up to the consumer.

Please explain how Parava's product (and my company's for that matter) can
still exist once WLS goes into effect.

Today, Snapnames, Parava, IARegistry, eNom and hosts of others co-exist.
Once WLS goes into effect, all such services will have to go through WLS.

You cannot argue that a customer can forego WLS and give Parava the request
to register the domain after it is deleted since, in the interim, anyone
could purchase a WLS and that will SUPERCEDE the request received by Parava.
WLS will always be the service which has "first dibs" on a domain name.

Today there is choice, with Snapnames available as a legitimate option.  In
2003, everyone *has* be we a reseller of WLS or not accept such waiting
listing requests.

Regards,

Mike Lampson
The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC


----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:57 PM
Subject: [Fwd: [registrars] Fw: [council] ICANN Board Action on WLS]


Hi Patricio,

My opinions about how ICANN should act on VeriSign's WLS proposal are
detailed in the Second General Counsel's analysis posted yesterday.
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm>  Boiling down
the extended discussion there:  Enhancing consumer choice should be a
key goal that guides ICANN's actions.  VGRS proposed (as its registry
agreement allows) to offer a new service that gives consumers one
option. Your company's NICGenie service is another option for consumers.
  While some consumers may prefer the WLS (since it provides a guarantee
of being effective in obtaining a name if the name is deleted), other
consumers may prefer Parava's product or those of others (since unlike
the WLS they mostly require payment only if the name is actually deleted
and successfully obtained).  The choice should be up to the consumer.

It may or may not be that consumers will conclude that WLS offers them a
more attractive service.  That may mean that fewer consumers will choose
the service Parava presently offers.  But it doesn't seem to me to be
ICANN's proper role to deny consumers the right to choose just to
preserve the present business model of particular registrars.

The above is a summary of my opinions (as you requested).  The ICANN
Board's views are expressed in the resolution it adopted, which is
posted at
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm#VeriSignWLSProposal>
.
On the particular point discussed above, the Board concluded "that, in
general, ICANN should avoid depriving consumers of the option of
purchasing services they may decide are beneficial, and that the option
of subscribing to a guaranteed 'wait list' service is one such service."

As to your question about transfers, as you know the DNSO (first the
registrar constituency and now the Transfers Task Force) has been
working on that issue for some time, but the DNSO has not yet reached a
resolution.  The subject involves many complex issues about which there
are significant differences of opinion (and please note that VeriSign
Registrar is joined by other registrars in many of its positions).  I
hope that you will participate in the process within the DNSO to make
sure your views are heard--it is important that good ideas be
contributed so that solutions can be developed for a set of very
difficult problems.

Best regards,

Louis Touton



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: [registrars] Fw: [council] ICANN Board Action on WLS
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:21:44 -0500
From: "Patricio Valdes" <valdes@parava.net>
To: <touton@icann.org>
CC: <registrars@dnso.org>

Attn. Louis Touton,

In your email below you state the following:

"the Board drew heavily from the advice developed by the task force's
efforts"

If Im not mistaken, the Task Force's primary Recommendation was to Deny
the WLS!

I would like your personal opinion as to why the WLS was approved by ICANN.

Second, why is it, that more important issues, like Domain Transfers
which clearly affect Verisign more than any otehr Registrar have gone
without a resolution for 18 months?

Thank you for your time.

Patricio Valdes
Parava Networks