[council] Public Comment - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04jun12-en.htm
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report
Comment/Reply Periods (*)

Important Information Links

Comment Open:

4 June 2012

Comment Close:

4 July 2012

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Public Comment 
Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04jun12-en.htm>

Reply Open:

5 July 2012

To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:irtp-c-initial-report@xxxxxxxxx>

Reply Close:

25 July 2012

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-c-initial-report/>

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Report of Public Comments

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

GNSO Working Group

Categories/Tags:

Policy Processes

Purpose (Brief):

The Generic Names Supporting Organization's (GNSO) Inter-Registrar Transfer 
Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group has published its Initial Report and is 
looking for community input on its proposed recommendations for changes to the 
existing IRTP.

Current Status:

As a required step of the GNSO Policy Development Process, the IRTP Part C 
Working Group has now published its Initial Report for public comment.

Next Steps:

Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will 
continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO 
Council.

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%20Initial%20Report%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose


In addition to background information, an overview of the WG's deliberations 
and community input received to date, the Initial 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 1.23 MB] contains the following four preliminary recommendations:
·        Recommendation #1 (Charter Question A) - The IRTP Part C WG recommends 
the adoption of change of registrant consensus policy, which outlines the rules 
and requirements for a change of registrant of a domain name registration. At 
this point in time, the WG is of the view that such a policy should follow the 
five steps as outlined in the section 5 of the Initial Report under the heading 
'proposed change of control process for gTLDs', but recognizes that there are 
additional details and/or steps that may need to be added and therefore 
requests community input on the proposed process and related notes.
·        Recommendation #2 (Charter Question B): the WG recommends Section 2 of 
the IRTP be revised to insert the following section: 2.1.4 Once obtained, an 
FOA is valid for (45 or 60 
1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.htm#foot1>)
 calendar days, or until the domain name expires, or until there is a Change of 
Registrant, whichever occurs first. The WG recorded rough consensus for the 
above recommendation, but some noted that support was conditional on a second 
recommendation related to this charter question being considered by the WG, 
which recommends that:
·        Recommendation #3 (Charter Question B): the Standard FOA is enhanced 
to support FOAs that have been pre-authorized or auto-renewed by a Prior 
Registrant who has chosen to opt out of this time-limiting requirement after 
having received a standard notice as to the associated risks. This enhancement 
would introduce a modified FOA, which would serve exclusively as a notification 
to the Prior Registrant that their pre-authorized domain transfer had occurred. 
The implementation of this recommendation should be accompanied by the 
appropriate security measures to protect Registrants from hijacking attempts 
using pre-approval as the attack vector. The WG is planning to discuss the 
details of such security measures in further detail in the next phase of its 
work.
·        Recommendation #4 (Charter Question C): The WG recommends that all 
gTLD Registry Operators be required to publish the Registrar of Record's IANA 
ID in the TLD's thick WHOIS. Existing gTLD Registry operators that currently 
use proprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they must also publish the 
Registrar of Record's IANA ID. This recommendation should not prevent the use 
of proprietary IDs by gTLD Registry Operators for other purposes, as long as 
the Registrar of Record's IANA ID is also published in the TLD's thick Whois.

In addition to input on these preliminary recommendations, the WG is 
specifically requesting feedback on a number of open items such as, amongst 
others: whether the proposed change of registrant policy should be accompanied 
by a restriction that would prevent a change of registrar immediately following 
a change of registrant for 60 days; whether this change of registrant policy 
should be incorporated as a stand-alone policy or as part of the existing IRTP; 
which changes to registrant information should qualify as a 'change of 
registrant', and; whether there are any other expected impacts of the proposed 
recommendations in addition to those already anticipated by the WG.

Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to especially 
review section 5 of the Initial Report in further detail in order to obtain 
further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and rationale with regards 
to these recommendations.

The WG appears to have rough consensus for all the above recommendations, but 
it should be noted that no formal consensus call was undertaken. Such a formal 
consensus call will be conducted once the recommendations are finalized 
following review of the public comments received on this Initial Report.
The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments 
and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its 
deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next 
phase of the policy development process.
________________________________

1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.htm#note1>
 The WG has not decided yet on the exact timeframe and would welcome community 
input.

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 PDP Working Group has 
been tasked to consider the following three questions:
a.     "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.
b.     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.
c.     Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that 
registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

Section III: Document and Resource Links

·        IRTP Part C Initial 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 1.23 MB]
·        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/resources/registrars/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
http://gnso.icann.org