<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] REMINDER: Public comments close on 13 February:IRTP Part B PDP - Rec 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Name
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] REMINDER: Public comments close on 13 February:IRTP Part B PDP - Rec 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Name
- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:13:59 -0800
- Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
- Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AczoDtimSw3jtMW9SqeaZch5jl8rsQAAB16g
- Thread-topic: REMINDER: Public comments close on 13 February:IRTP Part B PDP - Rec 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Name
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process -
Recommendation 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain
Name
Comment/Reply Periods (*)
Important Information Links
Comment Open:
23 January 2012
Comment Close:
13 February 2012
Close Time (UTC):
23:59
Public Comment
Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23jan12-en.htm>
Reply Open:
14 February 2012
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:irtp-b-rec9-part2@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply Close:
6 March 2012
View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-rec9-part2/>
Close Time (UTC):
23:59
Report of Public Comments
Brief Overview
Originating Organization:
ICANN Board
Categories/Tags:
* Policy Processes
* ICANN Board/Bylaws
* Contracted Party Agreements
Purpose (Brief):
Public notice is hereby provided of the proposed change to the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy (IRTP) to address the locking and unlocking of domain names
that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the
adoption of the proposed policy change, prior to ICANN Board consideration.
Current Status:
Following adoption by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council
of IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2, a public comment forum is now opened
as required by the ICANN Bylaws prior to ICANN Board consideration.
Next Steps:
Following the closing of the public comment period, the ICANN Board will
consider the comments received in conjunction with its consideration of the
proposed change to the IRTP.
Staff Contact:
Marika Konings
Email:
Policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Inter-Registrar%20Transfer%20Policy%20Part%20B%20Policy%20Development%20Process%20-%20Recommendation%209,%20Part%202%20Concerning%20a%20New%20Provision%20to%20Lock%20and%20Unlock%20Domain%20Names%20public%20comment%20period>
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B presented its recommendations to the
GNSO Council last year. For one of those recommendation, #9 part 2 ("denial
reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section
of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked concerning a new
provision to lock and unlock domain names"), the GNSO Council requested ICANN
staff to provide a proposal. In consultation with the IRTP Part B Working
Group, ICANN Staff prepared a proposal that, together with the IRTP Part B
recommendation, has now been approved by the GNSO Council.
The ICANN Staff proposal, taking into account the deletion of denial reason #7
as previously approved by the ICANN Board, proposes to expand the existing
section 5 (EPP - based Registry Requirements for Registrars) of the IRTP to
address "Registrar Lock Status". The proposed modifications to the IRTP can be
found in redline form in the ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation
#9 part
2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf>
[PDF, 490 KB]. The main elements of the proposed modifications are:
* Registrar may only impose a lock that would prohibit transfer of the
domain name if it includes in its registration agreement the terms and
conditions for imposing such lock and obtains express consent from the
Registered Name Holder: and
* Registrar must remove the "Registrar Lock" status within five (5) calendar
days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request, if the Registrar does not
provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to remove the "Registrar
Lock" status
You are invited to submit comments until 13 February 2011 before final
consideration by the ICANN Board.
Section II: Background
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward
procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one
ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy
also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer
requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community
consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by
the GNSO.
The IRTP Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) was the second in a series of
five PDPs that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy. The GNSO IRTP Part B Policy Development Process Working Group
was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain
hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and "lock
status". The WG delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 31 May 2011.
The GNSO Council acted on a number of the recommendations at its meeting on 22
June 2011. In relation to recommendation #9, part 2, a proposal from staff was
requested. Following consultations with the IRTP Part B Working Group and a
public comment forum on the Staff
Proposal<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov11-en.htm>,
GNSO Council approved IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2 and the staff
proposal at its meeting on 19 January 2012 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201201). As required by the ICANN Bylaws,
public notice is hereby provided of the policy that is considered for adoption
as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy,
prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations.
Section III: Document and Resource Links
* ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part
2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf>
[PDF, 490 KB]
* GNSO Council Resolution on the adoption of IRTP Part B Recommendation #9
part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201201>
* GNSO Council Resolution on the adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report
and Recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106>
* IRTP Part B Final
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf>
[PDF, 972 KB]
* IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-proposed-final-report-21feb11-en.pdf>
[PDF, 734 KB]
* IRTP Part B PDP Initial
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-initial-report-29may10-en.pdf>
[PDF, 765 KB]
* IRTP Part B Issue
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf> [PDF,
260 KB]
* Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/>
Section IV: Additional Information
None
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to
be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making
that takes place once this period lapses.
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|