ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [ga] Advisory: Availability of Bulk Transfers in Individual gTLDs

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Advisory: Availability of Bulk Transfers in Individual gTLDs
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:12:34 -0700

Danny, in response to your first question, the advisory is the implementation 
of one of the recommendations made by the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part 
A PDP Working Group. This recommendation was adopted by the GNSO Council in its 
resolution 20090416-2: the GNSO Council 'Recommends that ICANN staff 
communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer 
provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single 
gTLD under management of a registrar'. For further information, please see the 
IRTP Part A PDP Final Report on 

With best regards,


On 06/10/09 02:17, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


ICANN isn't in the habit of releasing advisories out of thin air, which leads 
one to ask, "what's going on here?"  What's the story behind this advisory?  
Perhaps someone in the know might be willing to shed some light on the 
circumstances that prompted the issuance of this advisory.

Other questions also come to mind -- for example, consider the last sentance in 
the advisory:

"Furthermore, where a bulk transfer is approved by ICANN due to lack of a 
registrar's authorization within a registry, there is no requirement that 
domains in other TLDs be transferred as a result."

If a registry decides to no longer honor a registrar's business (perhaps owing 
to the registrar's failure to make timely payments), wouldn't it be appropriate 
for ICANN in such circumstances to advise the registrant community that their 
registrations in other TLDs managed by this particular registrar might well be 
at risk?

Also, shouldn't registries be stepping up to the plate and be making 
informative disclosures to the community (as well as to ICANN) when a registrar 
has defaulted on its financial obligations?

The Termination notice sent to Red Register indicated that ICANN "has also been 
notified that Red Register is in breach of its Registry Registrar Agreement 
with VeriSign" -- so why couldn't VeriSign advise the public that a serious 
issue existed?

A final question comes to mind in light of the bulk process used with Red 
Register -- the FAQs stated:

Q.  If I have domain names with a registrar that lost its accreditation, will I 
lose my domain names?

A. No. Your registrar's gTLD names will be transferred to another registrar, as 
described below. Two-letter country-code (ccTLD) names, such as dot-in and 
dot-us, are not affected by this process.

So what process is invoked to deal with ccTLD names in such circumstances?

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