Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process - Recommendation 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Name
|Comment/Reply Periods (*)||Important Information Links|
|Comment Open:||23 January 2012|
|Comment Close:||13 February 2012|
|Close Time (UTC):||23:59||Public Comment Announcement|
|Reply Open:||Cancelled – No Comments||To Submit Your Comments (Forum Closed)|
|Reply Close:||View Comments Submitted|
|Close Time (UTC):||Report of Public Comments|
|Originating Organization:||ICANN Board|
|Purpose (Brief):||Public notice is hereby provided of the proposed change to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) to address the locking and unlocking of domain names that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy change, prior to ICANN Board consideration.|
|Current Status:||Following adoption by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council of IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2, a public comment forum is now opened as required by the ICANN Bylaws prior to ICANN Board consideration.|
|Next Steps:||Following the closing of the public comment period, the ICANN Board will consider the comments received in conjunction with its consideration of the proposed change to the IRTP.|
|Staff Contact:||Marika Konings||Email:||Policyfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose|
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B presented its recommendations to the GNSO Council last year. For one of those recommendation, #9 part 2 ("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 concerning a new provision to lock and unlock domain names"), the GNSO Council requested ICANN staff to provide a proposal. In consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, ICANN Staff prepared a proposal that, together with the IRTP Part B recommendation, has now been approved by the GNSO Council.
The ICANN Staff proposal, taking into account the deletion of denial reason #7 as previously approved by the ICANN Board, proposes to expand the existing section 5 (EPP - based Registry Requirements for Registrars) of the IRTP to address "Registrar Lock Status". The proposed modifications to the IRTP can be found in redline form in the ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2 [PDF, 490 KB]. The main elements of the proposed modifications are:
You are invited to submit comments until 13 February 2011 before final consideration by the ICANN Board.
|Section II: Background|
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. The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO.
The IRTP Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) was the second in a series of five PDPs that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The GNSO IRTP Part B Policy Development Process Working Group was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and "lock status". The WG delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 31 May 2011. The GNSO Council acted on a number of the recommendations at its meeting on 22 June 2011. In relation to recommendation #9, part 2, a proposal from staff was requested. Following consultations with the IRTP Part B Working Group and a public comment forum on the Staff Proposal, GNSO Council approved IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2 and the staff proposal at its meeting on 19 January 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201201). As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policy that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy, prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations.
|Section III: Document and Resource Links|
|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.