Deletions, Solutions and WLS

1
Deletions, Solutions and WLS

• Updated on July 10 for NC meeting on July 11
• Based on Bucharest ICANN Meeting -June 2002

2
Overview

• Background
• Legitimacy
• Process
• Issues
• Observations
• Recommendation

3
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.

4
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.

5
Background cont

• Notes The Broader set of issues re
  Deletions/Solutions continues to be work in
  progress for the TF.
• Within Deletions, Solutions and WLS TF
  concentrated on WLS due to call by Verisign for
  quick response.
• Current work on transfers, deletions did slow up
  in favour of consideration of WLS
• Evolution Reform consumes NC, including many
  members/constituencies on TF.

6
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 Forces 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 chairs 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.

7
Issues - Summary

• 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.
• 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.
• Registrar concerns Currently available
  competitive lapsed-name services would be
  eliminated by the implementation of WLS.
• Registry concerns Technical aspects remain even
  after the implementation of some changes.

8
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.

9
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.

10
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 todays 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

11
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

12
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.

13
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.

14
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.

15
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.
• The ICANN Board move with all haste to implement
  and actively enforce the proposed Redemptions
  Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
  practice
• The ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request to
  amend its agreement to enable it to introduce its
  proposed WLS.
• The ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request to
  trial the WLS for 12 months.

16
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
• 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 change. Other
  constituencies see this as a separate,but
  critical issue.

17
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.
• 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.
• 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 Verisigns provision of
  validating information to the board/staff.