Jump to content

Wait Listing Service: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Marie Cabural (talk | contribs)
9,082 edits
No edit summary
Christiane (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, steward, Administrators, translator
3,247 edits
m Christiane moved page WLS to Wait Listing Service over redirect: Standardize
 
(60 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:UnderConstruction.png]]
The '''WLS''' ('''Wait Listing Service''') was a proposed service for registrars to give potential registrants or subscribers the opportunity to reserve a desired domain name that is currently registered. Under this service a registrant may purchase a one year subscription for a particular domain name under a registrar, which then transacts with [[Verisign]]. A domain name subscribed under the Waiting List Service is to be registered to the subscriber in the event that the original owner of the domain name followed normal registration deletion processes. The normal process to delete a domain name is for registrants to submit a request for deletion with the registrar.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf Domain Name Waiting List Service]</ref>


'''WLS (Waiting List Service)''' is a service provided by registrars to give potential registrants or subscribers the opportunity to reserve their desired domain names that are currently registered for one year. Under this service a registrant may purchase a one year subscription for a particular domain name under a registrar which will directly perform the transaction with the [[Verisign]] GRS. A domain name being subscribed under the Waiting List Service will only be registered to the subscriber in the event when the owner of the domain name underwent through the normal operational process of registration deletion. For example, the present registrant submitted a request for the deletion of his or her domain name with the registrar.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-30dec01.pdf Domain Name Waiting List Service]</ref>
[[Verisign]] proposed the Waiting List Service as a new registry offering to domain name subscribers to ICANN on March 21, 2002. In addition, the company also requested the body to change its [[.com]] & [[.net]] registry agreement to include the WLS with a $35 subscription fee.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/dnso-deletes-report-10jun02.htm DNSO Status Report Regarding Deletions, Solutions, and WLS]</ref>


==WLS Objections==
[[Karl Auerbach]], then At-large Representative of North America to the [[ICANN Board]] of Directors, believed that the WLS provided an unfair advantage to Verisign. He pointed out that, "The people who are affected by this, the registrars, don't have a voice in ICANN, and I think it's unfair that we keep changing the contract these people have with VeriSign, without having any role or participation in making those changes." Furthermore, he raised concerns over the issue that the identity of the interested buyer is unknown to the current owner of the domain name. He emphasized that this might cause damage to the reputation of the original owner of the domain name.<ref>[http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/1451891/ICANN-Approves-Waiting-List-Service.htm Internetnews.com]</ref>


==Refereces==
==WLS Negotiations==
{{reflist}}
In March, 2002, during the [[ICANN Bucharest|ICANN Meeting in Bucharest]], Verisign presented its revised proposal to the [[ICANN Board]] regarding implementation of its Wait List Service. Under its new proposal, Verisign informed the Board that it included all the concerns and recommendations submitted by registrars to the [[DNSO|Domain Name Supporting Organization]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/vgrs-wls-proposal-20mar02.pdf Domain Name Wait Listing Service]</ref> Verisign's revised proposal ignited contradicting reactions from the internet community. Some expressed their strong opposition while others  supported the WLS proposal. To resolve the issue,the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 02.100 on August 23, 2002 delegating its president [[Paul Twomey]] and general counsel [[John Jeffrey]] to negotiate and make proper amendments to the [[.com]] and [[.net]] Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign to be able to offer the proposed WLS under certain conditions:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-23aug02.htm#02.100  ICANN Board Special Meeting]</ref>
# A redemption grace period for 6 months for all deleted domain names to give opportunity to the domain owners who unconsciously let their domain name expired to retrieve it
# A test run for one year
# No preference or exclusion due to any registrar reservation service
#  Current domain owners should receive notification that there is an interested buyer for his or her domain name, however the identity of the buyer will not be disclosed.
# Registrars won't be able to include the domain name on the WLS more than 60 days from expiration.
# Data from the WLS trial period should be collected to determine its relevance.
 
On October 16, 2003, Verisign asked the [[ICANN Board]] to reconsider its conditions under Resolution 02.100 and subsequently on January 26, 2004, ICANN General Counsel John O. Jeffrey provided Verisign with the Conclusion of Negotiations regarding ICANN's conditions on the WLS proposal. A special provision required the approval of the U.S. [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] on the amendments made to the .com, .net and .org registry agreement between ICANN and Verisign.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/jeffrey-to-lewis-26jan04.pdf Conclusion of WLS Negotiations]</ref>
 
Verisign refused to make appropriate and necessary amendment to its .net agreement with ICANN and to secure the approval of the Department of Commerce,<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/icann-net-arbitration-request-12nov04.pdf International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration ICANN vs. Verisign]</ref> which caused the delay in the implementation of the Waiting List Service.
 
==Legal Charges Against ICANN==
 
===Domain Justice Coalition Vs. ICANN===
In 2003, the [[Domain Justice Coalition]], comprised of 23 domain name registration companies, filed a lawsuit against ICANN due to its agreement with Verisign regarding the WLS. The Coalition argued that the Board's approval of the WLS eliminated competition between registrars and it gave an unfair advantage to [[Network Solutions]], Verisign's domain name registration subsidiary. According o them ICANN breached its terms of agreement with the registrars.<ref>[http://www.tax-news.com/news/ICANN_Sued_Over_Waiting_List_Agreement_With_Verisign____12674.html ICANN sued over WLS]</ref> The coalition filed a temporary injunction for the implementation of the WLS which was led by [[Dotster]], Inc., [[GoDaddy]] Software, Inc., and [[eNom]] Inc. to the California District Court.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/dotster-v-icann/motion-restraining-order-15jul03.pdf Motion for Temporary Restraining Order]</ref>


Then ICANN Spokesperson, [[Mary Hewitt]], explained ICANN's position; she said, "The board voted for it because they thought it was a boon to consumers. This eliminates a ton of people pinging to see if the name is available at once. [As a consumer,] instead of me paying three different people to try to get a domain name I may not get, [with the WLS (wait listing service)], if I don't get it, I don't pay any money".<ref>[http://www.tax-news.com/news/ICANN_Sued_Over_Waiting_List_Agreement_With_Verisign____12674.html ICANN sued over WLS]</ref>


In November, 2003, the California District Court denied the group's request for a temporary restraining order against ICANN's approval for Verisign to implement the Wait List Service.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/dotster-v-icann/order-denying-dotster-pi-13nov03.pdf ORDER Denying Temporary Restraining Order]</ref> By December, Network Solutions, [[Register.com]] and [[BulkRegister]] expressed their enthusiasm to then ICANN President [[Paul Twomey]] to launch the WLS after the California District Court's denial of the temporary restraining order filed against the body. In addition, the companies also commented that the black out period for the WLS is unnecessary and they emphasized that an adequate and enforceable safeguard is already present in the RAA.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/registrars-to-twomey-03dec03.htm www.icann.org]</ref>


===Newman & Newman Vs. Verisign & ICANN===
In 2004, another law suit was filed by [[Newman & Newman]], a law firm which represented Register.com and several other registrars against ICANN and Verisign to stop the implementation of the WLS. The group accused ICANN and Verisign of:<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrars_file_lawsuit_against_icann_and_verisign Circleid.com]</ref>
# Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations
# Violation of California Business & Professions Code
# Unlawful Tying Arrangement
# Attempted Monopolization
# Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
# Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
# Breach of Contract
# Declaratory Relief


On November 16, 2004, Judge Gerald Rosenberg ruled that the Superior Court of California is not the proper venue to legally decide the case filed by Register.com against ICANN and Verisign regarding the issue of WLS. The court decided to dismiss or alternatively, stay the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight causes of action against Verisign on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court noted that the state of Virginia is the proper venue for the complaint.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/registersite-v-icann/ps-and-as-support-motion-to-dismiss-or-stay-05nov04.pdf Register.com vs. Verisign and ICANN]</ref>


===Verisign Vs. ICANN===
On February 26, 2004, [[Verisign]] filed a law suit against ICANN alleging that the Internet governing body seriously abused its technical coordination function. The company also stated that ICANN conducted a  "blatant breach of the registry agreement, and an interference with Verisign's contractual relations and prospective economic relationships".<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/icann-cross-compl-12Nov04.PDF Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref> The company's allegation against ICANN was due to its directive to Verisign to stop its implementation of the [[Site Finder]] Service for the [[.com]] and [[.net]] domain name space, which caused the weakening of the stability of the Internet as reported by the [[IAB|Internet Architecture Board]] (IAB) and [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]].<ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/031001a.html ICANN Takes Action with respect to Verisign's Site Finder]</ref> In addition, Verisign also included its complaint that the delay of the implementation of the '''Wait List Service'''. It claimed ICANN insisted on the introduction of new procedures not required by the 2001 .com Registry Agreement, such as the price reduction for the intended WLS based on competitors' suggestions and for Verisign to accept other conditions suggested by ICANN. Verisign argued that such conditions benefit the different constituencies of ICANN but are disadvantageous to the company's competitive service offerings. The company also pointed out that ICANN's delay of the WLS deprived Verisign profit from the service. Furthermore, Verisign noted that other companies are offering  similar services to the WLS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/legal/verisign-v-icann/verisign-v-icann-complaint-26feb04.pdf Verisign Vs. ICANN]</ref>


United States District Court Judge Howard Matz dismissed the law suit filed by Verisign with prejudice on August 26, 2004. In his ruling, the judge noted that Verisign failed to sufficiently prove its anti-trust complaint against ICANN.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-federal-district-court-dismisses-verisigns-anti-trust-claim-against-icann-with-prejudice-71761617.html U.S. Federal District Court Dismisses VeriSign's Anti-Trust Claim Against ICANN with Prejudice]</ref> In response to the court's dismissal of the case, Verisign re-filed its anti-trust complaint against ICANN at the the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://www.fateback.com/news/domain_names/data/VeriSign_refiles_lawsuit_against_ICANN.html Verisign Re-files lawsuit against ICANN]</ref>


===ICANN & Verisign Settlement Agreement===
On February 28, 2006, ICANN announced its approval of a settlement agreement between Verisign in connection with the dispute surrounding the .com registry agreement. Based on the settlement a new registry agreement for the .com domain space was made, subject to the final approval of the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28feb06.htm Settlement Agreement]</ref> This effectively killed the WLS.


==References==
{{reflist}}




Latest revision as of 23:14, 27 June 2024

The WLS (Wait Listing Service) was a proposed service for registrars to give potential registrants or subscribers the opportunity to reserve a desired domain name that is currently registered. Under this service a registrant may purchase a one year subscription for a particular domain name under a registrar, which then transacts with Verisign. A domain name subscribed under the Waiting List Service is to be registered to the subscriber in the event that the original owner of the domain name followed normal registration deletion processes. The normal process to delete a domain name is for registrants to submit a request for deletion with the registrar.[1]

Verisign proposed the Waiting List Service as a new registry offering to domain name subscribers to ICANN on March 21, 2002. In addition, the company also requested the body to change its .com & .net registry agreement to include the WLS with a $35 subscription fee.[2]

WLS Objections[edit | edit source]

Karl Auerbach, then At-large Representative of North America to the ICANN Board of Directors, believed that the WLS provided an unfair advantage to Verisign. He pointed out that, "The people who are affected by this, the registrars, don't have a voice in ICANN, and I think it's unfair that we keep changing the contract these people have with VeriSign, without having any role or participation in making those changes." Furthermore, he raised concerns over the issue that the identity of the interested buyer is unknown to the current owner of the domain name. He emphasized that this might cause damage to the reputation of the original owner of the domain name.[3]

WLS Negotiations[edit | edit source]

In March, 2002, during the ICANN Meeting in Bucharest, Verisign presented its revised proposal to the ICANN Board regarding implementation of its Wait List Service. Under its new proposal, Verisign informed the Board that it included all the concerns and recommendations submitted by registrars to the Domain Name Supporting Organization.[4] Verisign's revised proposal ignited contradicting reactions from the internet community. Some expressed their strong opposition while others supported the WLS proposal. To resolve the issue,the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 02.100 on August 23, 2002 delegating its president Paul Twomey and general counsel John Jeffrey to negotiate and make proper amendments to the .com and .net Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign to be able to offer the proposed WLS under certain conditions:[5]

  1. A redemption grace period for 6 months for all deleted domain names to give opportunity to the domain owners who unconsciously let their domain name expired to retrieve it
  2. A test run for one year
  3. No preference or exclusion due to any registrar reservation service
  4. Current domain owners should receive notification that there is an interested buyer for his or her domain name, however the identity of the buyer will not be disclosed.
  5. Registrars won't be able to include the domain name on the WLS more than 60 days from expiration.
  6. Data from the WLS trial period should be collected to determine its relevance.

On October 16, 2003, Verisign asked the ICANN Board to reconsider its conditions under Resolution 02.100 and subsequently on January 26, 2004, ICANN General Counsel John O. Jeffrey provided Verisign with the Conclusion of Negotiations regarding ICANN's conditions on the WLS proposal. A special provision required the approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce on the amendments made to the .com, .net and .org registry agreement between ICANN and Verisign.[6]

Verisign refused to make appropriate and necessary amendment to its .net agreement with ICANN and to secure the approval of the Department of Commerce,[7] which caused the delay in the implementation of the Waiting List Service.

Legal Charges Against ICANN[edit | edit source]

Domain Justice Coalition Vs. ICANN[edit | edit source]

In 2003, the Domain Justice Coalition, comprised of 23 domain name registration companies, filed a lawsuit against ICANN due to its agreement with Verisign regarding the WLS. The Coalition argued that the Board's approval of the WLS eliminated competition between registrars and it gave an unfair advantage to Network Solutions, Verisign's domain name registration subsidiary. According o them ICANN breached its terms of agreement with the registrars.[8] The coalition filed a temporary injunction for the implementation of the WLS which was led by Dotster, Inc., GoDaddy Software, Inc., and eNom Inc. to the California District Court.[9]

Then ICANN Spokesperson, Mary Hewitt, explained ICANN's position; she said, "The board voted for it because they thought it was a boon to consumers. This eliminates a ton of people pinging to see if the name is available at once. [As a consumer,] instead of me paying three different people to try to get a domain name I may not get, [with the WLS (wait listing service)], if I don't get it, I don't pay any money".[10]

In November, 2003, the California District Court denied the group's request for a temporary restraining order against ICANN's approval for Verisign to implement the Wait List Service.[11] By December, Network Solutions, Register.com and BulkRegister expressed their enthusiasm to then ICANN President Paul Twomey to launch the WLS after the California District Court's denial of the temporary restraining order filed against the body. In addition, the companies also commented that the black out period for the WLS is unnecessary and they emphasized that an adequate and enforceable safeguard is already present in the RAA.[12]

Newman & Newman Vs. Verisign & ICANN[edit | edit source]

In 2004, another law suit was filed by Newman & Newman, a law firm which represented Register.com and several other registrars against ICANN and Verisign to stop the implementation of the WLS. The group accused ICANN and Verisign of:[13]

  1. Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations
  2. Violation of California Business & Professions Code
  3. Unlawful Tying Arrangement
  4. Attempted Monopolization
  5. Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
  6. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
  7. Breach of Contract
  8. Declaratory Relief

On November 16, 2004, Judge Gerald Rosenberg ruled that the Superior Court of California is not the proper venue to legally decide the case filed by Register.com against ICANN and Verisign regarding the issue of WLS. The court decided to dismiss or alternatively, stay the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight causes of action against Verisign on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court noted that the state of Virginia is the proper venue for the complaint.[14]

Verisign Vs. ICANN[edit | edit source]

On February 26, 2004, Verisign filed a law suit against ICANN alleging that the Internet governing body seriously abused its technical coordination function. The company also stated that ICANN conducted a "blatant breach of the registry agreement, and an interference with Verisign's contractual relations and prospective economic relationships".[15] The company's allegation against ICANN was due to its directive to Verisign to stop its implementation of the Site Finder Service for the .com and .net domain name space, which caused the weakening of the stability of the Internet as reported by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Security and Stability Advisory Committee.[16] In addition, Verisign also included its complaint that the delay of the implementation of the Wait List Service. It claimed ICANN insisted on the introduction of new procedures not required by the 2001 .com Registry Agreement, such as the price reduction for the intended WLS based on competitors' suggestions and for Verisign to accept other conditions suggested by ICANN. Verisign argued that such conditions benefit the different constituencies of ICANN but are disadvantageous to the company's competitive service offerings. The company also pointed out that ICANN's delay of the WLS deprived Verisign profit from the service. Furthermore, Verisign noted that other companies are offering similar services to the WLS.[17]

United States District Court Judge Howard Matz dismissed the law suit filed by Verisign with prejudice on August 26, 2004. In his ruling, the judge noted that Verisign failed to sufficiently prove its anti-trust complaint against ICANN.[18] In response to the court's dismissal of the case, Verisign re-filed its anti-trust complaint against ICANN at the the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles.[19]

ICANN & Verisign Settlement Agreement[edit | edit source]

On February 28, 2006, ICANN announced its approval of a settlement agreement between Verisign in connection with the dispute surrounding the .com registry agreement. Based on the settlement a new registry agreement for the .com domain space was made, subject to the final approval of the Department of Commerce.[20] This effectively killed the WLS.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Domain Name Waiting List Service
  2. ↑ DNSO Status Report Regarding Deletions, Solutions, and WLS
  3. ↑ Internetnews.com
  4. ↑ Domain Name Wait Listing Service
  5. ↑ ICANN Board Special Meeting
  6. ↑ Conclusion of WLS Negotiations
  7. ↑ International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration ICANN vs. Verisign
  8. ↑ ICANN sued over WLS
  9. ↑ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
  10. ↑ ICANN sued over WLS
  11. ↑ ORDER Denying Temporary Restraining Order
  12. ↑ www.icann.org
  13. ↑ Circleid.com
  14. ↑ Register.com vs. Verisign and ICANN
  15. ↑ Verisign Vs. ICANN
  16. ↑ ICANN Takes Action with respect to Verisign's Site Finder
  17. ↑ Verisign Vs. ICANN
  18. ↑ U.S. Federal District Court Dismisses VeriSign's Anti-Trust Claim Against ICANN with Prejudice
  19. ↑ Verisign Re-files lawsuit against ICANN
  20. ↑ Settlement Agreement
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Wait_Listing_Service&oldid=1351447"