ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:03:07 -0800
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acl+M7fxNuhw3i9dQ42zXZ9KQhq4LwAAA94w
  • Thread-topic: Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org]
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]
[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]

Dear All,

Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)

You are encouraged to submit comments on the Initial Report on the 
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) from 9 to 30 January 2009.

Please note a summary report has been published in Arabic, Chinese, French, 
Russian and Spanish on pages:
can be accessed from the public comment section

A public comment period opened on Friday 9 January 2009 for 21 days on an 
Initial Report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). 

The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five 
planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar 
Transfer Policy. 
The IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for 
exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential 
need for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer 
requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should 
include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between registrars. 

A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its 
deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. 

PLEASE NOTE: The Working Group will not make a final decision on which 
solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of 
the comments received during the public comment period and in the final 
constituency statements has taken place. 

Following its deliberations, the Working Group has made some preliminary 
conclusions for each issue, which it hopes will inspire further comments from 
the public as well as the constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as 

Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data 
available to one another?
The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which 
it is currently used to facilitate transfers. Some members suggested that 
finding a way to make the Registrant e-mail address more readily available 
could be addressed as part of an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS 
protocol.  This could be through updates to the existing protocol, modification 
of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet 
Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol. However, after review and 
discussion none of these options received broad agreement. 

The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for 
providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future 
IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that 
would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been 
completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the 
current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the 
registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process 
is completed. 

Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic 
Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad 
agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. 
However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether these options 
should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be left to market 

Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling 
partial bulk transfers between registrars?
Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad 
agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling partial 
bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group believes 
that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing Bulk Transfer 
provisions, or through existing market solutions. 

As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment 
for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for redrafting of 
the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for 
further action. 

The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete 
Initial Report
 [PDF, 383K] before submitting comments. 

Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to irtp-initial-report@xxxxxxxxxx 

Public comments received can be accessed at 

The deadline for submission of comments is 30 January 2009. 

Related links: 

Part A Initial Report: 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 

Existing Transfer Policy: 

Thank you for your cooperation.
kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>