DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[comments-deletes] WLS comments per public comment period ending July 22, 2002

To the TF task force:

First, let me say that it is likely that ICANN will ignore any input from 
the community and do as it pleases, IMO. 

 The Dotster reponse to the WLS sums up the situation quite well.  As 
a domain name holder, I would not wish to see the WLS and would be 
more likely to hold on to domains that I might have released simply 
because acquiring them in the future would be nearly impossible without 
the cost skyrocketing to the point where individuals could not afford to 
obtain them.   Verisign will be "taxing" domain name holders if they are 
even able to obtain the WLS slot for the domains they currently hold, or 
creating a de facto ownership of the "hold" on a currently held domain 
by a third party.   The speculators will have a field day auctioning the 
WLS registrations for a ransom type fee and there will be a landrush 
larger than anything we've seen to date.  I believe that WLS will cause 
two things to happen.  1) Average registrants (individuals/small 
businesses) will not obtain .COM domains (or any TLDs that have WLS 
attached), 2) Verisign will lose more business than it generates due to 
public distaste for its practices.   A third consequence is probable 
protracted litigation by registrars and some registrants, the costs of 
which will eventually be passed on to registrants.  I can also envision 
users groups banding together to either boycott or bash Verisign until 
they reverse their position and take a more reasonable approach to their 
falling stock prices.  Verisign made a monumental error in paying so 
high a price for NSI and they are attempting to get the public to redeem 
them by gauging and creating a new monopoly.  

If the free market were allowed to handle it, WLS implementation would 
most likely kill Verisign since the public obviously does not accept it.  
Would it be better to allow that to happen and curb ICANN's 
responsibilities to that of technical only?  Or would it be better at this 
time to deny Verisign approval of the WLS?  Can ICANN prevent 
Verisign's implementation regardless?  Personally, I am torn between 
these questions.  My instincts tell me that ICANN should stay out of it 
and let the market kill Verisign.  Between litigation and the public's total 
dissatisfaction with Verisign, it would not take long for it to lose the war.

The problem is that the confusion and dismay that would be caused by 
disruption in the .COM TLD would be painful for the public for quite 
some time.  However, perhaps it is a lesson we should all learn.

Please see comments interspersed below.

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:

The  introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and 
proven (for not less than three months) practice envisaged in the 
proposed Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and 
practice and the establishment of a standard deletion period.    

        (LDG)Three months is not sufficient to determine whether the RGP 
will work.  Many problems have surfaced beyond that time frame in the 
past.  Six months is a more viable minimum option to test this program.

   Verisign has proposed an interim Grace Period. The TF      
recommends that any interim Grace Period have all the  characteristics 
and conditions of the Redemption Grace Period now in implementation. 
[No support is indicated for a process, which differs from the ICANN 
Redemption Grace period.] [Verisign has described their proposed      
implementation of an interim period as manual, but restricted to names 
with WLS. This does not meet the TF's recommendations that any 
interim process has to be consistent with the ICANN Redemption Grace 
 Period.] [The Task Force seeks comments on the requirement that any 
redemption grace period be consistent with the ICANN Redemption 
Grace period]. 

     (LDG) Without question.  There should be no dilution whatsoever.  If 
anything, there should be more safeguards in place.

   Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion 
period be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that 
this could be considered separately from WLS. The TF seeks comment 
on whether this should be implemented separately from the timeline 
associated with WLS implementation or should be required in a time      
frame to coincide with the WLS implementation? Or should be required 
as a commitment, with a firm timeline, before approving WLS? 

	(LDG) It must be required as a commitment, with a firm timeline, 
before approval..... and WLS SHOULD NOT be approved.  

The  WLS must 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. {Notice}  [Service not included in VS WLS proposal. The TF 
seeks comment on this].

	 (LDG) Yes, the registrant should be notified.  However, Verisign 
should also compensate the registrar if the registrar is to have the 
responsibility for notification.  Registrars will have now write code to 
implement notification and tracking of WLS transactions.  Verisign's 
windfall should not add to registrars' costs. 

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}      [Service not included in the VS WLS. The 
TF seeks comments on this.] 

			(LDG) Absolutely.  The registrant should have complete 
details on any WLS transaction involving his/her currently held domain.  
That includes complete contact information. 

Based on the above two points (notice and transparency), the price for 
the WLS be set at the same amount as the   current registry fee for a 
registration - the cost of the WLS function being no more, an probably 
less, than a registration - plus any additional costs to "notice and 
transparency', based on Verisign's provision of such validating 
information on such costs to the Board/Staff. 

	(LDG) WLS registration should be the same if not less than the 
current price - in total - to the registrant.  In addition, it should be a base 
price, since there are no "addtional" services required (email addresses, 
parking, etc.)  It is simply a bit of text as a place holder requiring no 

	(LDG) In addition, since there will be no competition, it should be 
treated as a monopoly and the price regulated/capped at no more than 
$10 total as a one-time charge to the WLS applicant.  

	(LDG) There should be NO ANNUAL renewal fee and no renewal 
allowed for anyone other than the current domain name holder. Also, 
WLS should not be allowed for any domain with multiple year 
registration attached to it.  WLS should be allowed only for those 
domains that would expire within one year.  

        (LDG) The bottom line is that all registrations should be first come, 
first served, period.  There should not be anything like a WLS at 
regsistry level.  Aside from a grace redemption period, all domains 
should return to the available pool if not renewed.


Leah Gallegos
GA voting member
Domain name holder (.com, .net, .org)

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