ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:44:09 -0800
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcyonxS0dqbIwToBQDmxEXpQf0v7LQ==
  • Thread-topic: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21nov11-en.htm

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Comment 
Period Deadlines (*)
Important Information Links Public Comment 
Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-c-charter-21nov11-en.htm>
Open Date: 21 November 2011 To Submit Your Comments 
(Forum)<mailto:irtp-c-charter@xxxxxxxxx>
Close Date: 22 December 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59
View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-c-charter/>

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Working 
Group is requesting your input on its Charter Questions to help inform its 
deliberations. The Charter Questions are:

 *   "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this 
function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the 
country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, 
and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of 
locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim 
to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
 *   Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be 
implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining 
Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name 
is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name 
status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may 
have changed.
 *   Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries 
use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

For further information on these Charter Questions, please review the IRTP Part 
C Final Issue Report (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf [PDF, 625 KB]).

In addition, the Working Group has identified the following specific issues / 
questions it would like to receive further input on:

 *   In relation to charter question a), the Issue Report notes that 'data on 
the frequency of hijacking cases is a pivotal part of this analysis. Mechanisms 
should be explored to develop accurate data around this issue in a way that 
meets the needs of registrars to protect proprietary information while at the 
same time providing a solid foundation for data-based policy making. Data on 
legitimate transfer activity benefitting from the current locking policy 
wording needs to be collected'.
 *   In addition to the ccTLDs described in the Issue Report that do have a 
procedure or process for a 'change of control' (.ie, .eu and .uk) are there any 
other ccTLDs that have similar procedures or processes which the WG should 
review in the context of charter question a)? Furthermore, the WG would be 
interested to receive feedback on the experiences with these or other ccTLD 
procedures or processes for a 'change of control' as well as identifying 
potential benefits and/or possible negative consequences from applying similar 
approaches in a gTLD context.
 *   In relation to charter question b) and c), the WG would be interested in 
further input or data in relation to the incidence of this issue to determine 
its scope and the most appropriate way to address it.
Section II: Background

The aim of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is to provide a 
straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from 
one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council is reviewing and 
considering revisions to this policy through a series of Working Groups it has 
established to conduct these efforts. The IRTP Part C Policy Development 
Process has just begun and the Working Group formed is requesting your input to 
help inform its deliberations, as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
Section III: Document and Resource Links

IRTP Part C Final Issue Report: 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf [PDF, 625 KB]
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/
Section IV: Additional Information None Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: 
policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Inter-Registrar%20Transfer%20Policy%20Part%20C%20Policy%20Development%20Process%20public%20comment%20period>

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org



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