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 DRAFT

2. Overview • Background • Legitimacy • Process • Issues • Observations • Recommendation DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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 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

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. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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 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

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 DRAFT

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]. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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. DRAFT

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 Verisign’s provision of validating information to the board/staff. DRAFT