RE: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

I understand your comments, but however it is interpreted, the policy 
to reject a transfer based on "#1 Evidence of fraud" and/or "#4 
Reasonable dispute over the identity of the Registered Name Holder or 
Administrative Contact" do not seem like justifiable reasons to reject 
ALL transfer requests when a whois update has occurred.  After all, it 
says "Reasonable dispute" rather than "Any whois update".

To that point, if the registrars who adopted that position considered 
other supporting variables (for fraud or reasonable dispute over 
ownership) before rejecting a transfer it might seem more in-line with 
the policy, but I've not heard any comments to that effect.

Absolutely, if the majority of Registrars and ICANN community are not 
clear on this or any ICANN policy, then ICANN should consider 
clarifying the policy itself, as opposed to, or in addition to an 
advisory.  However, I'm not sure that the majority or even a 
substantial number are not clear on what this policy means.

As for whether we are personally affected by this, I'm happy to 
clarify.  The lock that some registrars implement following a whois 
update causes constant frustration for us and for registrants wanting 
to transfer to us.  An $8.95 transfer ends up costing $20+ of effort 
and the registrant often gives up because of the hassle.

In many cases, the lock acts like a valve, only allowing transfers to 
flow through to those registrars, while preventing transfers out which 
from our standpoint seems more like asset protection than registrant 
protection.

I am not expecting to convince you of anything but I do appreciate the 
opportunity to offer you some feedback from the other side of the table.

Regards,

~Paul
:DomainIt



At 07:09 AM 4/5/2008, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>Paul,
>
>Yes, this is what ICANN now says the policy means. Note however, that it
>doesn't change the policy. In my opinion, the purpose of the advisory is
>to make clear how ICANN Staff interprets the policy, and how it intends
>to enforce the policy. That doesn't mean that all registrars will have
>the same interpretation, or that further disputes upon enforcement
>attempts regarding it won't occur. 
> 
>That is why it's important that we follow the appropriate process to
>make the changes we think are necessary to the policy itself. Leaving
>less open to interpretation will help prevent distracting disputes over
>the policy. 
>
>We (Registrars, the ICANN community, etc.) cannot operate effeciently if
>after years of allowing certain activities based on what a policy
>actually says, we then try to change that activity through *Do what I
>meant. Not what I said.* enforcement principles. That makes no sense at
>all to me. And while you may not be affected by it this time, I would
>hope you can at least see the dangerous precedent this could set.
>
> 
>Tim 
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: RE: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the
>Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
>From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Sat, April 05, 2008 1:15 am
>To: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>Looks like I didn't read the advisory properly when I wrote this:
>
>>I'm glad that's been clarified, although I suppose "A registrant change 
>>to Whois information" could be interpreted to mean that an 
>>Administrative, Billing, Technical or Name Server change doesn't fall 
>>under the same rule. :/
>
>According to the advisory...
>
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm
>
>"Registrant updates to Whois contact details is not enumerated as a 
>valid basis to deny a transfer request in the Transfer Policy. In 
>addition, ordinary changes to Whois data fields are not evidence of 
>fraud and therefore not a basis to deny a domain name transfer request."
>
>That's a little clearer, and I wanted to follow up so that I didn't 
>leave the wrong impression. Having said that, it would have been 
>clearer still if they omitted the word Registrant. Of course it 
>doesn't mean that the same rule doesn't apply to an admin or tech 
>making a whois update, but seeing as they are trying to clarify an 
>existing disputed policy they should be as concise as possible.
>
>With all respect, to the comment about *Do what I mean, not what I 
>say?*, I feel that ICANN have now said what they mean. I applaud all 
>registrars who will change their policies to be in line with what 
>ICANN meant, and have now said.
>
>~Paul
>:DomainIt
>
>
>At 08:50 AM 4/4/2008, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>>Elliot,
>>
>>As we've said many times, our position is that we are simply doing what
>>the policy doesn't expressly prohibit, and for a what we believe to be a
>>very good reason. That said, in anticipation of this adivosry we
>>have/are changing our internal policy to some degree. And of course,
>>we'd fully participate in any PDP on the subject.
>> 
>> 
>>Tim 
>>
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: Re: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the
>>Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
>>From: elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Fri, April 04, 2008 7:28 am
>>To: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>remember tim, from many of our perspective you have changed policy 
>>with your unilateral actions. this is simply a response to that.
>>
>>as I have suggested to you MANY times publicly, I encourage you to 
>>change policy through the methods you described. we would be happy to 
>>participate in that process. unfortunately your approach here is much 
>>like when the telcos call for "free markets".
>>
>>On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that the advisory doesn't completely clear up the issues. But
>>> that's primarily because the policy itself isn't all that clear on a
>>> number of issues.
>>>
>>> I think the right way to solve some of the ambiguity is through an
>>> appropriate bottom-up consensus process. It would be a dangerous
>>> precedent for us all to allow advisories and clarafications to change
>>> policy, even if what was intended appears different from what is 
>>> written
>>> in the policy.
>>>
>>> Hundreds of registrars have come on board since the transfer policy
>>> process took place. Many are creds of registrars that existed at the
>>> time, but many are not. Are they expected to go back through the
>>> mountainous archives of dicussions to try and figure out what was
>>> intended? Is it reasonable to expect that we operate under the 
>>> principle
>>> of *Do what I mean, not what I say?* I think that's ridiculous.
>>>
>>> There will likely be one or more PDPs on various transfer policy 
>>> issues
>>> coming up. We all need to pay close attention to those and be sure 
>>> that
>>> our input is as clear and timely as we expect the output to be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the
>>> Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
>>> From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Fri, April 04, 2008 4:00 am
>>> To: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer
>>>> request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future
>>>> registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not think that this clarification leads to anything. If you want
>>> to charge for transfers during AGP, you simply change the owner on
>>> expiration day and charge whatever you think the customer is able to
>>> pay.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>