Transcript Transfer Task Force: WLS Deletions, Solutions and WLS Updated on July 10 for NC meeting on July 11 Based on Bucharest ICANN Meeting -June.

Transfer Task Force: WLS
Deletions, Solutions and WLS
Updated on July 10 for NC
meeting on July 11
Based on Bucharest ICANN Meeting -June 2002
DRAFT
1
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Legitimacy
Process
Issues
Observations
Recommendation
DRAFT
2
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Legitimacy
• General Council stated: [Considerations in Evaluating Proposed New
Registry Services, 19 May 2002 paper on WLS in prep for Bucharest]
“If[, however,] there are specific reasons to conclude that the legitimate
interests of others are likely to be harmed, then ICANN's existing
obligation to seek consensus whenever possible before acting suggests
that it should invoke the formal consensus development mechanisms that
currently exist prior to any decision by the ICANN Board.”
• Upon reviewing WLS issues and hearing from all parties, Task Force
concludes that the interests of registrants and registrars will be harmed
• It will be TF recommendation to have Names Council forward
consensus recommendation to Board.
• * Minority reports, if received, will be included.
DRAFT
3
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Background
• 21 March 02, Verisign Registry (VGR), requested amendments to
registry agreements to introduce new registry level service for a wait
listing service (WLS)
• Varying views expressed in the community(some pro; many con.)
• 17 April 02, General Counsel presented analysis of VGR request
• Transfer Task Force is considering deletions as part of transfer
analysis.
• 22 April 02, Board Resolution 2.53: Request Names Council to ensure
a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of domain
names, possible solutions and the WLS.
• 24 April 02, Names Council referred the review to the Transfer TF.
DRAFT
4
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Background cont
• Notes: The Broader set of issues re Deletions/Solutions continues to
be “work in progress” for the TF.
1. Within “Deletions, Solutions and WLS” TF concentrated on WLS due to
call by Verisign for quick response.
2. Current work on transfers, deletions did slow up in favour of
consideration of WLS
3. Evolution & Reform consumes NC, including many
members/constituencies on TF.
DRAFT
5
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Process to Gather Information and Input
• Review of pre-existing materials took place.
• Information and input from the community was sought through open
conference calls, as well as using email for gathering input and
comments
• A Status Report on the Task Force’s work was published 10 June 02
• Specific input received from Verisign, Snap Names and ICANN staff;
broader community.
• A draft Status Report and set of recommendations specifically on WLS
was posted to TF on 4 June 02 – Very few edit comments received. TF
noted limitation in posting via chair’s posting. Held call 7/10.
• Update report to NC on June 11; posting for comment.
• July 24 Names Council meeting: TF agree report/any minority opinions
- recommendation for NC adoption and forwarding to Board.
Forwarded 7/26.
DRAFT
6
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Issues - Summary
1. Registrant concerns: There is both legitimate frustration felt by
prospective registrants in securing a currently registered gTLD domain
name when its registration lapses and grave concern by existing
registrants that they may loose their currently registered gTLD domain
name should its registration prematurely lapse through mistakes,
accidents, or erroneous unintentionally lapse.
2. Competition/Registrant: Competition should always be viewed as to its
effects on the consumer (registrant) – not the effect on a specific
supplier, regardless of their position in the supply chain.
3. Registrar concerns: Currently available competitive “lapsed-name”
services would be eliminated by the implementation of WLS.
4. Registry concerns: Technical aspects remain even after the
implementation of some changes.
DRAFT
7
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Observations/Input - Registrants
• Individuals, businesses, governmental agencies and non commercial
users are all losing domain names due to mistake or error.
• The number of incidents was not quantified by the TF, but it is clear
from complaints and anecdotal examples that it is occurring.
• Domain names get erroneously caught in the deletion process and
registrants have difficulty in getting the name back due to the
complexity of the process, lack of consistent processes, lack of agreed
responsibility or procedures to deal with different situations which led to
accidental or erroneous deletion.
• Sufficient numbers of complaints were received that a “Redemption
Period” has been recommended by ICANN staff.
• The TF believes that deletions of this nature deserve priority attention.
DRAFT
8
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Observations/Input – Registrants 2
•
Concerns included that the cost of service might continue to rise, lacking
pressure of competition – clearly the currently suggested price is not cost
based (the usual basis for pricing a monopoly service)
• The TF believes that WLS is not a service to address these situations
and should not be treated or viewed as such.
• The TF believes that alternative approaches and redress without cost
to the registrant are needed to ensure rapid recovery of such
categories of deleted names, including, but perhaps not limited to
Redemptions Grace Period.
• Further work should be undertaken to reach agreement on a standard
deletions period and procedures, which are followed by all accredited
registrars.
• Some comments were received about possible approaches to
establishing such standard period/procedures.
DRAFT
9
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Observations/Input – Competition/Registrants
Competition should always be viewed as to the effect on the eventual
consumer – this is the framework of consideration the TF has taken.
•Registrants are captive to the domain of their registration – the switching
cost is usually too high to contemplate changing domains (the huge
investments in brand/advertising of a domain name, precludes change)
•While individual registrars are acknowledged to have existing vested
interests in the status quo – maintaining today’s competition is NOT about
protecting particular businesses, rather it is retaining an open market
•The registry – within a specific domain – is a monopoly service
•Services based upon a monopoly service, that eliminate downstream
competitive services, become themselves, monopoly services
•Competition delivers price, innovation and choice to registrants
DRAFT
10
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Observations/Input – Competition/Registrants 2
•The existing competing “lapsed-name” services will be eliminated by the
WLS service
•Reselling a single standardized service is NOT a preferred substitute for
competing choice
•A “trial” will have the affect of eliminating the existing competing services
•An integrated supplier of registry and registrar services provides its own
competition concerns to do with the registry ensuring it treats all without
undue discrimination – creating such a relationship (where it does not
currently exist) is a backward step
•Monopoly services are usually price regulated on a “cost-plus” basis –
this introduces regulatory burden
DRAFT
11
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Observations/Input - Registrar
• Participants in calls have suggested that WLS should not be viewed as
a solution to remaining technical issues/concerns.
• Participants recognize the concerns about “add storms” : in the view of
some, other options could be used to minimize server impact of ‘add
storms”. Some creative and non expensive solutions were suggested
by different participants. A few of these are mentioned in a later page.
• Summary: Clearly technical and performance issues related to present
approach of domain name deletions still exist.
• Verisign and Snapnames presented information that the present
registrar level competitive services are “exclusionary” [see submissions
by SnapNames and Verisign/others in TF archieves] and that they are
not “widely available” to any interested individual registrant or are cost
prohibitive for a single name registration. [see SnapNames
submissions to Board and to archieves].
DRAFT
12
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Observations/Input – Registrar 2
•
•
•
•
Participants in calls have suggested that WLS should not be viewed as a
solution to remaining technical issues/concerns.
SnapNames is particularly concerned that these services do not serve
individual registrants’ interest in “getting a deleted name” and presented
research they have done on who has registered a sample of “deleted names”.
Their documentation identifies those who could benefit from improved
guarantee of obtaining a lapsed name. It also presents information about
benefits to this WLS service approach.
Counter arguments were presented by others in the community based on the
harm to the existing competitive services.
Arguments by others at the Public Forum in Bucharest included both
supporters and opponents to WLS service. Several proponents of
SnapNames in particular spoke in support of WLS. Subsequent postings
challenged whether some of the “proponents” were affiliated in some way with
SnapNames. The Board and the TF are left with a rather disparate set of
documented contributions by those who favor and those who oppose.
DRAFT
13
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Observations/Input - Registry
• Technical aspects of present approach in deletions of domain names:
Extensive discussions have taken place over several months.
• VGR has asserted that they have addressed technical performance
problems for Registrars.
• They stated that WLS was not an effort to address technical
performance problems, but acknowledged their interest in recovering
the investment made in addressing the technical issues of “add
storms”.
• Registrar Constituency has submitted emails to the TF, identifying
further technical processes which are not yet completed.
DRAFT
14
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Recommendations
•
The following policy recommendations are to be concluded by the
Task Force, posted for further comment, and then provided to the
Names Council meeting for adoption and forwarding to the ICANN
Board.
1. The ICANN Board move with all haste to implement and actively
enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names
policy and practice
2. The ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request to amend its agreement
to enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
3. The ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
months.
DRAFT
15
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Recommendations - alternate
•
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 further
recommend that:
4. The introduction of the WLS be dependent on the implementation and
proven (for not less than 3 months) practice envisaged in the proposed
Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and
the establishment of a standard deletion period.[VS has proposed an
interim Redemptions Grace Period. The TF does not accept concept
with different characteristics, and has asked for further clarification.
The TF recommends that any Grace period be built on the ICANN
Redemption Process. The TF asked for information about timing for
implementation. VS has not addressed the issue of standard deletions.
The TR-TF requests that VS advise on their support for such a
DRAFT
change. Other constituencies see
this as a separate,but critical issue.16
Transfer Task Force: WLS
Recommendations (draft) – alternate cont
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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, and
probably less than a registration – plus any additional costs to “notice
and transparency’ based on Verisign’s provision of validating
information to the board/staff.
DRAFT
17