Skip to main content

Welcome to the new ICANN.org! Learn more, and send us your feedback. Dismiss

Resources

Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D

Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links
Comment Open: 14 November 2012
Comment Close: 14 December 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
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: GNSO
Categories/Tags: Policy Processes
Purpose (Brief): As a required step in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP), ICANN Staff is seeking input on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D [PDF, 725 KB].
Current Status: Following the request for an Issue Report by the GNSO Council on 17 October 2012, ICANN Staff has now published the Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part D for public comment.
Next Steps: The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for its consideration.
Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: Policy-staff@icann.org
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

ICANN Staff is seeking comments on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D [PDF, 725 KB]. Specifically, this Report addresses:

  • Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
  • Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
  • Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
  • Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants;
  • Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;
  • Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the ICANN community to provide its views on the issues outlined above and on whether a Policy Development Process should be initiated. Further data and supporting information on these issues are especially welcomed as most of these issues were originally raised in 2005. This Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for its consideration.

Section II: Background
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. The 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 IRTP Part D is the fourth in a series of Policy Development Processes (PDPs) that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part D at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4).
Section III: Document and Resource Links

Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D [PDF, 725 KB]

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy

Section IV: Additional Information
N/A

(*) 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.

Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as""icann.org"" is not an IDN."