[ncdnhc-discuss] Fw: [ga] FYI: WLS discussion in Bucharest

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander at svensson.de>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga at dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS discussion in Bucharest


:
:
: ICANN Bucharest Meeting Topic: VGRS Proposal for Wait-Listing Service
: http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm
:
: One topic that will be discussed at the ICANN Public Forum to be held in
: Bucharest, Romania on Thursday, 27 June 2002 [1], is a proposal by
VeriSign
: Global Registry Services (VGRS) to establish, on a twelve-month trial
: basis, a "Wait-Listing Service" (WLS) for the .com and .net top-level
: domains. At its meeting on 22 April 2002, the ICANN Board invited
: comments from the Internet community [2], both at the Bucharest Public
: Forum and over the Internet, regarding whether VGRS's proposal should
: be approved.
:
: ...
: Background and Summary of the WLS Proposal
: ...
: History of Discussion of WLS Proposal
: ...
: Legal Considerations
: ...
:
: Special Topics for Discussion
:
: Several concerns have been raised by the Registrar Constituency and
: others regarding VGRS's request for an amendment allowing charging
: for WLS on a twelve-month trial basis. Some of these concerns are:
:
: 1. Displacement of existing registrar-level competition. Currently,
:   different registrars offer a variety of services to customers waiting
:   for domain-name registrations to be deleted. These different services,
:   which are currently offered on a competitive basis, all work on the
:   basis of promptly registering names once they are returned to the
:   available pool after deletion. Because the registry-level WLS would
:   divert deleted names from being returned to the available pool, it
:   would "trump" all of the competitive registrar-level services.
:
:   In general, the introduction of registrar-level competition has been
:   extremely successful, and care should be taken before a registry
:   operator is allowed to displace that competition by exercising
:   abilities it has acquired by virtue of being designated the registry
:   operator.
:
:   In the specific case of WLS, however, it is quite possible that some
:   of the technically harmful effects of the registrar-level services
:   (such as the high registry loads caused by "add storms") may justify
:   instituting a registry-level WLS. It is also quite possible that
:   the consumer benefits of having a guaranteed effective reservation
:   (which can not be done at the registrar level) make it appropriate
:   to allow registry-level WLS. It does not appear to me that a
:   consensus position on these issues has yet developed in the community.
:
:   Comments are invited on any technical advantages or disadvantages
:   of introducing a registry-level WLS on a trial basis.
:
: 2. Selective "grandfathering." Objections have been raised to the
:   preferential transition arrangements proposed for the current
:   SnapBack service, but not for any of the current services with which
:   it competes. Since only some registrars are currently offering the
:   SnapBack service, this proposed preference raises questions as to
:   whether equivalent access would be accorded to all registrars.
:   Comments are invited on what arrangements are appropriate to
:   accommodate arrangements that consumers have made with the existing
:   registrar-level services.
:
: 3. Basis for pricing. Many in the community believe that the price for
:   the proposed WLS service should be limited to a
cost-plus-reasonable-profit
:   basis. Registrars, in particular, have indicated that the proposed
:   price is several times likely costs. Maximum-price limits are intended
:   to ensure that a registry operator does not abuse the sole-source
:   position it achieves through its registry agreement with ICANN. Making
:   judgments about appropriate maximum prices requires consideration of
:   many factors, such as whether any effective market-based mechanism
:   will be present for constraining price. On the other hand, the argument
:   that the only true market test of the appropriateness of the product and
:   its costs is its reception by potential purchasers would support VGRS's
:   suggestion for a trial period after which a more informed evaluation
:   could be made.
:
: Community comments on the above concerns are specially invited, as are
: comments on other concerns that are not mentioned above.
:
: In addition, the ICANN Board would appreciate comments on the following
: additional topics:
:
: 4. Standards for consideration of proposed new charges for registry
services.
:   Is the framework outlined above in "Considerations in Evaluating
Proposed
:   New Registry Services" [3] appropriate? If not, what adjustments to this
:   approach should be made? Are there additional factors that should be
:   considered? How can the process for introducing new registry services
best
:   be streamlined while still protecting the legitimate interests of others
:   affected? What role should the DNSO have [4]?
:
: 5. Effects on the larger problem of name deletions. The current system for
:   handling deletions of names in the uTLDs is the source of many
complaints.
:   Some domain-name registrants have suffered from inadvertent deletions,
:   while other would-be registrants are frustrated at delays in deletion of
:   expired names. Comments are invited on the relationship and likely
effects
:   of the WLS proposal on these problems.
:
: ...
: Links to Documents
: ...
:
: [1] http://www.icann.org/bucharest/index.html#27June
: [2]
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#VeriSignWLSProposal
: [3]
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm#ConsiderationsinEvaluatingPropo
sedNewRegistryServices
: [4] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00183.html
:
: Regards,
: /// Alexander
:
: --
: This message was passed to you via the ga at dnso.org list.
: Send mail to majordomo at dnso.org to unsubscribe
: ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
:
:
: