Re: [ga] Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt secondary market for domain names

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all,

  Seems that the link that you provided,
http://www.icann.org/en/announcemen...-29may10-en.htm
is not found.  Are you sure you got that URL correctly
or was it suddenly taken down? Perhaps the GNSO secretariat
or Chuck can get this 'Mystery' ironed out properly?  


-----Original Message-----
>From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 29, 2010 2:12 PM
>To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [ga] Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could 
>disrupt secondary market for domain names
>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>ICANN, in typical fashion, released an important policy report today (a 
>Saturday during the US Memorial holiday long weekend) that folks might not 
>notice until it's too late. It's regarding the work from the Inter-Registrar 
>Transfer Policy Working Group, and the report is at:
>
>
>http://www.icann.org/en/announcemen...-29may10-en.htm
>
>What's especially of concern is the proposed "Expedited Transfer Reversal 
>Policy" (ETRP, see Annex C of the PDF, page 49) which would permit the 
>registrant at the "losing" registrar to undo a transfer for up to 6 months 
>after a transfer. There is currently no mechanism to dispute the proposed ETRP.
>
>This proposal would create great uncertainty in the secondary market for 
>domain names, as it means a "transfer" isn't considered final for up to 6 
>months after a purchase, assuming one changes registrars during a transaction, 
>which is almost always the case.
>
>Here's the typical pattern of a purchase. Example.com is registered at RegA, 
>and you want to buy the domain name, but transfer to RegB during the 
>transaction (RegB might be your "home" registrar (Tucows for me), or might be 
>Moniker who does escrows, etc.). At present, the seller would get paid 
>immediately after the domain name transfers from RegA to RegB, and you'd have 
>control of the domain name at your preferred registrar (RegB). If there was a 
>dispute, it would go to court, etc., and RegB would await a court ruling. The 
>good faith buyer is definitely protected.
>
>Under ETRP, though, it would be a nightmare. How would the buyer know for sure 
>that he/she has control and ownership of the domain name, when the seller 
>could simply undo the transfer for up to 6 months??!!?? The seller would end 
>up with both the cash AND the domain name, and the domain name would be at 
>RegA (a registrar you don't want the domain name to be at). You as the buyer 
>would then need to take the seller to court, and the relevant jurisdiction 
>would no longer even be that of RegB (your preferred registrar), but would be 
>that of RegA.
>
>A Moniker or other company that uses their own registrar to ensure a secure 
>transfer would not be able to help at all, because they are "RegB." All the 
>power reverts to RegA (the original "losing" registrar). Not only that, the 
>registrant at RegA indemnifies RegA itself, so RegA doesn't even care if they 
>are "stealing" back a legitimately purchased domain.
>
>One approach to try to "solve" this problem, as a legitimate buyer, would be 
>to transfer the domain name at RegA first. So, for example, if the domain name 
>is at GoDaddy or NSI, you would do an internal change of registrant transfer, 
>keeping the name at that registrar. However, then you are stuck for 60 days, 
>as most of these registrars have been trying to hold the domain name hostage 
>for that amount of time, to get extra renewals, etc. So, for 60 days you are 
>in limbo at a registrar that you don't like, and one that is probably not in 
>the legal jurisdiction you want to be in (e.g. GoDaddy = Arizona jurisdiction, 
>which would not be good). During that 60 day period, do you really have full 
>control of the domain name? I would say "No", because you (as the legitimate 
>buyer) would face the possibility of the transfer being undone by a registrar 
>that you don't want to be at.
>
>Anyhow, this is a very messed up proposal. If you look at DailyChanges.com or 
>RegistrarStats.com, you'd quickly see that transfers make up roughly the same 
>number of daily transactions as new registrations. So, it's very important 
>that any changes that would have such a major impact on the secondary market 
>for domain names be well thought out.
>
>If one looks at the composition of those who were on the workgroup:
>
>
>https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi
>
>(see the bottom) it appears most do not even understand the grave impact such 
>changes would have on the secondary market (which is probably greater in 
>economic value than the primary market). I'm all for fighting domain 
>hijacking, but this "solution" is far worse than the problem it is trying to 
>solve. There needs to be a secure and predictable procedure for the 
>irrevocable transfer of a domain name to a legitimate buyer, yet ICANN is now 
>making the process less predictable and more risky for the buyer. The 
>legitimate buyer would face at least 60 days (and up to 6 months) of risk 
>without due process if the proposal is accepted.
>
>What's even more appalling is that ICANN didn't even open up a comment period 
>yet, so that folks could get their opinions on the record! The comment period 
>won't begin until July 5th, and will last only 20 days. This is silly, given 
>that it costs $0 to open up the comment period now.
>
>In the meantime, I encourage folks to contact their registrars to make sure 
>that your voices are heard, and perhaps blog about the issue if you have a 
>blog, etc.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.leap.com/
>

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300+k members/stakeholders and growing, 
strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827