WLS

WLS (Waiting List Service) was a proposed 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 Verisign GRS. A domain name being subscribed under the Waiting List Service will only be registered to the subscriber in the event that the owner of the domain name undertook normal operational processes of registration deletion. For example, the present registrant submitted a request for the deletion of his or her domain name with the registrar.

Background

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 WLS with a $35 subscription fee.

ICANN Board's Approval of the WLS

In August 2002, The ICANN Board approved the Waiting List Service proposal of Verisign to test the company's expiring domain name service despite the controversy surrounding it. The WLS became controversial due to the objections raised by the Domain Name Supporting Organization, which emphasized that it would not cooperate with the Board unless its recommendations were adopted. The DNSO's recommendations adopted by the Board include:

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. The WLS will be implemented on test run for one year.
3. There should be 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.

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.

Legal Charges Against ICANN

In 2003, the Domain Justice Coalition, comprised of 23 domain name registration companies, filed a law suit 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 to them ICANN breached its terms of agreement with the registrars. 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.

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".

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 Waiting List Service. By December, Network Solutions, Register.com and Bulk Register expressed their enthusiasm to then ICANN President Paul Twomey to launch the WLS after the California District Court's denial on the temporary restraining order filed against the body. In addition, the companies also commented that the black out period for WLS is unnecessary and they emphasized that an adequate and enforceable safeguard is already present in the RAA.

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:

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 pointed that the state of Virginia is the proper venue for the complaint.

WLS Negotiation

In 2004,The ICANN Board delegated it's president Paul Twomey and general counsel John O. Jeffrey to negotiate amendments with Verisign regarding the Waiting List Service. The ICANN Board conducted procedural reviews, reconsidered all the requests raised by registrars and Verisign and eventually approved a resolution based on the outcome of the negotiations. Part of the negotiation is a condition wherein ICANN will seek the approval of the Department of Commerce to amend its registry agreement with Verisign to allow the implementation of the service and to avoid violation of the .net agreement. Verisign refused to amend its .net agreement with ICANN and secure an approval from the Department of Commerce.