Overview of WLS

1

Proposed Wait Listing Service (WLS)

Presented by Chuck Gomes VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) Potential registrants subscribe, through a participating registrar, for the right to 2

Overview of WLS

• Separate interface from Registry Registrar Protocol • All Shared Registration System processes remain unchanged except: – A domain name with a WLS subscription will be automatically registered to the WLS subscriber for the name when the name is deleted through normal deletion procedures.

• Subscriptions are first-come, first-served • Initially, only one subscription per name • 12-Month trial period for WLS offering 3

Overview of WLS

• Proposed fee structure: – $35 wholesale price to registrars for 1-year subscription – If registrars educate subscribers: • $7 rebate for first 250,000 aggregate subscriptions • $11 rebate for subscriptions after 250,000.

– Unrelated to annual registration fee.

4

Historical Background

• Mid-2001: Rush for deleted names – overload of Shared Registration System • September 2001: Formation of registrar discussion group in Montevideo  parallel registry idea • October 2001: Strong opposition by registrars to parallel registry (WLS)  VGRS tabled WLS • November 2001: Request by Registrars Constituency for a WLS proposal 5

Historical Background

• December 2001: 1 st – WLS Proposal to registrars http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf

• January 2002: – Feedback from registrars & IP Constituency – Revised WLS Proposal with feedback procedures and schedule provided to all DNSO constituencies and the GA: • http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-28jan02.pdf

• February 2002: feedback schedule was delayed in response to a request from registrars 6

Historical Background

• March 2002: Feedback was received from – Registrars – IP Constituency – General Assembly • March 2002, Accra, Ghana: – No questions/comments in GA meeting – No feedback from the Names Council • 20 March 2002: Final WLS Proposal – http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf

7

Historical Background

• 21 March 2002: – Request to ICANN for amendment to Appendix G to add WLS pricing to the .com and .net registry agreements • 17 April 2002: – ICANN General Counsel WLS Analysis: • http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm

8

Disclaimers

• VGRS requested feedback from affected parties from 28 January 2002 through the ICANN Accra meetings.

• VGRS solicited feedback from interested parties to determine if there was sufficient interest to offer the WLS and to design it to best meet user needs.

• VGRS does not believe that adding new registry services in and of itself requires the development of new policy and thus does not accept that any new services require community consensus on new policy.

9

VGRS Analysis

http://verisign-grs.com/wls_comment_analysis.pdf

• Goal: to reduce inefficiencies and unfairness in the current land rush approach for registration of deleted names • Immediate objective: to verify that a sufficient market demand existed for the WLS offering • Registrar feedback was given significant value because registrars are VGRS’ customers and because they would be the ones implementing the WLS if they so elected.

10

VGRS Analysis

Registrar Feedback • Only 33 registrars out of over 170 expressed a specific opinion: – 14 (42.4% of 33) voiced support for the WLS.

– 19 (57.6% of 33) opposed the WLS.

• Based on # of registrations represented: – 57.5% supported the WLS trial.

– 17.8% opposed the WLS trial.

– 24.7% did not vote or abstained.

11

VGRS Analysis

• Suggestions made by the IP Constituency were incorporated into the revised proposal.

• GA feedback was overwhelmingly negative but it came from a very small minority of GA members (probably less than 10).

12

VGRS Analysis

• One key complaint was that some businesses may be put out of business if the WLS is implemented.

– If this is true, does that mean that the WLS is a more attractive offering to consumers?

– Should the market have to suffer in order to help such businesses survive as they encourage extremely inefficient use of VGRS systems ? (e.g., 1 registration per 500,000 transactions) 13

Conclusion

• WLS should be an important tool to relieve SRS congestion, improve fairness and protect intellectual property.

• VGRS decided that there was sufficient interest to conduct a 12-month WLS trial.

– The WLS offers a preferred experience for consumers.

– All registrars may participate but no registrar is forced to offer the WLS.

– A 12-month trial will allow a valid market test.

• Questions?

14