Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process
This page is available in:
|Comment Period Deadlines (*)
||Important Information Links
|Public Comment Box
||21 November 2011
||To Submit Your Comments (Forum Closed)
||22 December 2011
||View Comments Submitted
|Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Working Group is requesting your input on its Charter Questions to help inform its deliberations. The Charter Questions are:
- "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
- Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
- Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.
For further information on these Charter Questions, please review the IRTP Part C Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf [PDF, 625 KB]).
In addition, the Working Group has identified the following specific issues / questions it would like to receive further input on:
- In relation to charter question a), the Issue Report notes that ‘data on the frequency of hijacking cases is a pivotal part of this analysis. Mechanisms should be explored to develop accurate data around this issue in a way that meets the needs of registrars to protect proprietary information while at the same time providing a solid foundation for data-based policy making. Data on legitimate transfer activity benefitting from the current locking policy wording needs to be collected’.
- In addition to the ccTLDs described in the Issue Report that do have a procedure or process for a ‘change of control’ (.ie, .eu and .uk) are there any other ccTLDs that have similar procedures or processes which the WG should review in the context of charter question a)? Furthermore, the WG would be interested to receive feedback on the experiences with these or other ccTLD procedures or processes for a ‘change of control’ as well as identifying potential benefits and/or possible negative consequences from applying similar approaches in a gTLD context.
- In relation to charter question b) and c), the WG would be interested in further input or data in relation to the incidence of this issue to determine its scope and the most appropriate way to address it.
|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 C Policy Development Process has just begun and the Working Group formed is requesting your input to help inform its deliberations, as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
|Section III: Document and Resource Links
IRTP Part C Final Issue Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf [PDF, 625 KB]
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/
|Section IV: Additional Information
(*) 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.