2. If your response requires an edit or deletion of Recommendation #18, please indicate the revised wording and rationale here.

Revised wording: Remove 18.3 (“The specific request includes a reasonable basis for removal of the restriction) and replace with the following specific reasons for lifting the restriction (as outlined in the text): Legitimate circumstances surrounding an escrow intermediary affecting the completion of the acquisition of the involved registered domain name; To complete documented registered domain name acquisition (aftermarket purchase, portfolio consolidation, or bona fide purchase); Intentional release of the registered domain name that had transferred to the Registrar where it becomes evident the domain name use would be in violation of the Registrar’s Acceptable Use Policy (AuP), Terms of Service (ToS), or local law or other similar governance. Rationale: While the NCSG welcomes the standardization and implementation of transfer restrictions after registration and transfer, we note that recommendation 18 also contains a provision which allows the lifting of the 30-day restriction based on “a reasonable basis for removal of the restriction”. While the NCSG strongly prefers that the policy clearly articulates the acceptable exceptions, rather than the vague “reasonable basis for removal of the restriction” statement. We do not see how ICANN compliance can adjudicate claims against policy statements of this nature, and it leaves the policy open to malicious activities which undermine the security intent. The NCSG believes that the implementation guidance contained in the document already articulates the acceptable exceptions, and the policy should be adjusted to limit the lifting of the transfer restrictions to these specific reasons.

2. If your response requires an edit or deletion of Recommendation #21, please indicate the revised wording and rationale here.

Revised wording: Add to I.A.3.7.1 (“Evidence of (a) fraud or (b) DNS Abuse as defined in Section 3.18.1 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement”) a requirement that the registrar present the evidence behind the denial and explain mechanisms available to the registrant to either resolve and/or challenge the denial. Rationale: Like the comment regarding recommendation 18, the NCSG remains uneasy regarding the provision in recommendation 21 that registrars “may” deny a transfer for reasons that may not be entirely clear, specifically for a claim of fraud or DNS abuse and especially because the concept of DNS abuse is so vague. In these cases, although registrants can directly engage with their registrar to resolve such matters, we feel the recommendation can be strengthened by adding a requirement that registrars present the evidence behind the denial and explain mechanisms available to the registrant to either resolve and/or challenge the denial.

2. If your response requires an edit or deletion of Recommendation #26, please indicate the revised wording and rationale here.

Revised wording: In 26.3, replace the word “eliminating from” with “retaining in”, thereby mandating that a confirmation be received to process a material change of registrant data.. In 26.4 (text describing the removal of the 60-day lock on Change of Registrant Data within the new stand alone policy) replace existing text with “Registrars must impose a 30 day transfer restriction after material changes in registrant data, with the option to release the restriction in a manner similar to Recommendation 18” (or similar text). Rationale: For 26.3, the NCSG has concerns that one e-mail notifying a RNH of a material change is not enough protection, as these messages can be easily missed when not expected or never received because of system problems (including loss of power increasingly bringing systems down around the world following harsh weather), which would create great problems in the case of a malicious change action initiated by someone acting contrary to the interests of the RNH. Therefore, the enhanced security of a confirmation of the change is warranted. We believe that an opt-out may be considered provided the opt-out action also resulted in a validated message. For 26.4, the NCSG supports the concept of a standalone policy for Change of Registrant Data, however, we believe that material changes should follow security mechanisms similar to those for transfers. We understand that this can impose hardship in certain circumstances, again, similar to transfers, and therefore agree that some mechanism for lifting the transfer in specifically-designated circumstances would be appropriate.

2. If your response requires an edit or deletion of Recommendation #27, please indicate the revised wording and rationale here.

Revised wording: In 27.3, The Registrar MUST send the notification via email, SMS and any other secure messaging systems available to all contacts available.. Rationale: Further to our comment on recommendation 26.3, the NCSG recommends that registrars must utilize all available channels to reach the RNH, including SMS for mobile numbers provided and technical contacts, where that has been collected.