The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the body of ICANN responsible for policy development relating to generic Top-Level Domains, is asking for public comments on issues relating to procedures for modifying registration information and transferring domain names between registers to inform the deliberations of the Working Group created to address these issues. Specifically, comments on establishing a new urgent return procedure for challenging potentially fraudulent domain name transfers or alterations, potential measures to undo inappropriate transfers and the use of Registrar Lock Status are requested from the broader community. The details of the issues being considered are provided below.
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. The policy is an existing GNSO consensus policy (for more information about consensus policies, please see http://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm) that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO Council. In order to facilitate this review, the Council has sub-divided the issues and initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on those issues grouped together in part B on 24 June 2009. An IRTP Part B Working Group was chartered to review and provide recommendations on the following issues:
- Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) hijacking report (icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf [PDF, 400K]); see also (icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
- Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
- Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
- Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
- Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in ‘lock status’ provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
Background documents / links
- Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy – icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm
- GNSO Issues Report on IRTP Part B – gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf [PDF, 300K]
- Translations of the GNSO Issues Report on IRTP Part B: gnso.icann.org/issues/
- IRTP Part B Working Group Wiki: https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b
- IRTP Part B WG Mail Archives: forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/
- ICANN Glossary – icann.org/en/general/glossary.htm
Staff responsible: Marika Konings
Deadline and how to submit comments
Comments are welcome via e-mail to email@example.com until 5 October 2009.
Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200910.html#irtp-b.
An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/.
As an experiment, in order to inform possible changes to the GNSO policy development process, a public comment box has been opened in the 6 UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian) in which comments will also be accepted.
This ICANN announcement was sourced from: