Status Report for Ongoing GNSO Policy Development Processes
Currently, there are four GNSO PDPs ongoing:
Details of Policy Development Process
Details of Policy Development Process
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. As part of an overall review of the IRTP, which will cover five new PDPs, the GNSO Council requested an issues report in preparation for a second PDP on 16 April 2009. The issues covered in the Issues Report on IRTP Part B address concerns related to undoing transfers and registrar lock status, more specifically:
a) Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed;
b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC).
c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in “lock status” provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
 |
Issues Report |  |
Initiation |  |
Public Comment | |
Task Force | |
Report Posting | |
Public Comment | |
Final Report | |
Council Deliberation | |
Recommendation to Board | |
Public Comment | |
Board Vote | |
Further information:
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/
IRTP Part B Issues Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf
On 26 March 2008, Staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. The request for the issues report reflects community concerns about techniques used by cybercriminals to evade detection by rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or name server. In the Report, Staff recommended that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also noted that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO to participate in such an activity. At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council formally launched a policy development process (PDP) and called for creation of a Working Group on fast flux. Subsequently, at its 29 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council approved a Working Group charter to consider the following questions:
- Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
- Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?
- Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
- Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
- How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
- How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
- What technical (e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate) and policy (e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior) measures could registries and registrars implement to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
- What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting?
- What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?
- What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux?
The Working Group is currently working on finalizing its report.
|
Issues Report | |
Initiation | |
Public Comment | |
Task Force | |
Report Posting | |
Public Comment | |
Final Report | |
Council Deliberation | |
Recommendation to Board | |
Public Comment | |
Board Vote | |
Further information:
Fast Flux Issues Report - Fast Flux GNSO Issues Report (25 March 08) and translations
Fast Flux Working Group Wiki - https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi?fast_flux_pdp_wg
Fast Flux Initial Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/fast-flux-initial-report-26jan09.pdf
3. Registration Abuse Provisions
On 25 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a motion requesting an issues report on registration abuse policies. The objective of the issues report was to identify existing provisions in registry-registrar agreements relating to abuse as well as to identify and describe potential options for further Council consideration. The issues report was submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration on 29 October 2008. The GNSO Council decided not to initiate a PDP yet, but first task a Working Group to investigate further some of the open issues identified in the Issues Report, such as the difference between registration abuse and domain name use abuse; the effectiveness of existing registration abuse policies; and which areas, if any, would be suitable for GNSO policy development to address registration abuse. The GNSO Council will not make a decision on whether or not to initiate a PDP on registration abuse policies until the RAP Working Group has presented its findings.
|
Issues Report | |
Initiation | |
Public Comment | |
Task Force | |
Report Posting | |
Public Comment | |
Final Report | |
Council Deliberation | |
Recommendation to Board | |
Public Comment | |
Board Vote | |
Further information:
Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registration-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf
Translations of the Executive Summary of the Issues Report - http://gnso.icann.org/policies/
Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Wiki - https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_working_group
4. Post-expiration Domain Name Recovery
During the ICANN meeting in Cairo, the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The request was received by the GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. The issues report was submitted to the GNSO Council for review on 5 December 2008. At its meeting on 7 May, the GNSO Council adopted a motion initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery. Issues that will be considered in this PDP include, whether:
- Adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
- Adequate expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
- Adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
- Additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);
- To allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.
|
Issues Report | |
Initiation | |
Public Comment | |
Task Force | |
Report Posting | |
Public Comment | |
Final Report | |
Council Deliberation | |
Recommendation to Board | |
Public Comment | |
Board Vote | |
Further information:
ALAC Request for Issues Report on Post-expiration Domain Recovery - http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/correspondence/correspondence-20nov08-en.htm
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf