Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B – Recommendation #8 and #9 Part 2 – Staff Proposals
|Comment Period Deadlines (*)||Important Information Links|
|Public Comment Box|
|Open Date:||22 November 2011||To Submit Your Comments (Forum Closed)|
|Close Date:||31 December 2011||Time (UTC):||23:59||View Comments Submitted|
|Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose|
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B presented its recommendations to the GNSO Council earlier this year. For two of those recommendations, recommendation #8 concerning the standardization and clarification of Whois status messages regarding Registrar Lock status and recommendation #9 part 2 concerning a new provision to lock and unlock domain names, the GNSO Council requested ICANN staff to provide proposals. In consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, ICANN Staff has prepared the following two proposals: ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 [PDF, 288 KB] and ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2 [PDF, 490 KB]. Before submitting these proposals to the GNSO Council for its consideration, ICANN Staff is requesting your input.
|Section II: Background|
The aim of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy through a series of Working Groups it has established to conduct these efforts. The IRTP Part B Working Group presented its Final Report in May this year (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf [PDF, 972 KB]). In relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved: 'Prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation.' (As adopted by the GNSO Council in Resolution 20110622-1 on 22 June 2011)In relation to recommendation #9 – part 2, the GNSO Council resolved: 'Prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report – (Recommendation #9 – part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation.' (As adopted by the GNSO Council in resolution 20110622-1 on 22 June 2011)
|Section III: Document and Resource Links|
|Section IV: Additional Information|
|Staff Contact:||Marika Konings||Email:||email@example.com|
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.