RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross,

 

<You are well aware that there are parallel processes ongoing related to
transfers policy.  The GNSO track solely relates to policy development
activities related to improving and clarifying the existing policy based
on the operational and customer experience so far.  This work is ongoing
and will likely result in several recommendations for small tweaks to
the existing policy.  The staff track relates to enforcing the existing
policies based on ICANN's interpretation of the existing policy.  The
staff's process has not been "set aside" as you say, nor are their
actions representative of an attempt to alter existing policy.>

 

I don't disagree that there can be an enforcement track and a policy
track.  Unfortunately, ICANN staff's draft advisory is attempting to go
down the road of amending the terms of the Transfer Policy on the issue
of whether registrars may lock domain names for a period of time or
require special provisions when a registrant changes Whois contact
information just before a transfer request - often a precursor to domain
name hijacking.  Such policy work falls within the GNSO's mandate and is
well beyond the ICANN staff's authority.  If you don't like a certain
business practice, you should seek a solution under the approved policy
process. The draft Advisory attempts to deny registrars a key tool in
protecting registrants from fraud by changing policy outside the
approved policy development process.  

 

<Regardless of your position and attempt to spin the issue, it is
exceptionally clear, to me at least, that the "security policies" of the
two largest registrars are a flagrant violation of the existing policy
and fly in the face of the staff advisory that has been issued.>

 

It's very easy to use words like "flagrant" and "clear" without any
supporting facts.  Moreover, pointing to a draft advisory as
authoritative is the real spin here.

 

<The existing policy provides no basis upon which a registrar may deny a
transfer of a registration when the transfer request comes after a
contact update.  In fact, these very updates are often necessary in
order to affect a transfer in the first place.>

Once again, this is your personal opinion and it is inconsistent with
the existing policy.  As we described in our public comments (see
http://forum.icann.org/lists/retransfers-comments/msg00016.html), the
Transfer Policy does provide several bases to justify the denial of a
transfer request in such circumstances.  Where there are differences of
opinion, the ongoing policy development process should strive to
reconcile these different points of views.  Not an ICANN staff advisory.

 

<In any event, the original question wasn't to you, but to Kieren. I too
would be interested in hearing more regarding what the status of this
advisory is now that it has been posted for public comment for an
extended period of time.>

 

I, too, look forward to what ICANN has to say about the status of its
draft Advisory.