Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report
|Comment/Reply Periods (*)||Important Information Links|
|Comment Open:||4 June 2012|
|Comment Close:||4 July 2012|
|Close Time (UTC):||23:59 UTC||Public Comment Announcement|
|Reply Open:||5 July 2012||To Submit Your Comments (Forum)|
|Reply Close:||25 July 2012||View Comments Submitted|
|Close Time (UTC):||23:59 UTC||Report of Public Comments|
|Originating Organization:||GNSO Working Group|
|Purpose (Brief):||The Generic Names Supporting Organization's (GNSO) Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group has published its Initial Report and is looking for community input on its proposed recommendations for changes to the existing IRTP.|
|Current Status:||As a required step of the GNSO Policy Development Process, the IRTP Part C Working Group has now published its Initial Report for public comment.|
|Next Steps:||Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council.|
|Staff Contact:||Marika Konings||Email:||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose|
In addition to background information, an overview of the WG's deliberations and community input received to date, the Initial Report[PDF, 1.23 MB] contains the following four preliminary recommendations:
In addition to input on these preliminary recommendations, the WG is specifically requesting feedback on a number of open items such as, amongst others: whether the proposed change of registrant policy should be accompanied by a restriction that would prevent a change of registrar immediately following a change of registrant for 60 days; whether this change of registrant policy should be incorporated as a stand-alone policy or as part of the existing IRTP; which changes to registrant information should qualify as a 'change of registrant', and; whether there are any other expected impacts of the proposed recommendations in addition to those already anticipated by the WG.
Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to especially review section 5 of the Initial Report in further detail in order to obtain further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and rationale with regards to these recommendations.
The WG appears to have rough consensus for all the above recommendations, but it should be noted that no formal consensus call was undertaken. Such a formal consensus call will be conducted once the recommendations are finalized following review of the public comments received on this Initial Report.The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as theWG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process.
|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 PDP Working Group has been tasked to consider the following three questions:
|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.
<<Drafted by Alan Greenberg and submitted to the ALAC on 25 June 2012.>>
The ALAC supports the general direction that the IRTP C PDP WG is heading. Specifically, the ALAC strongly supports all measures that will reduce the possibility of domain hijacking while still providing legitimate registrants the ability to change registrars.
The ALAC similarly supports all efforts to formally define the process by which the registrant of record can be changed, with implicit safeguards to inhibit hijacking. The ALAC does not have strong views as to whether this needs to be a separate consensus policy or not, but the overall results and benefits to registrants should not be diminished by this decision.
The ALAC supports the requirement to have all gTLDs use the IANA Registrar IDs (in addition to any proprietary ones if desired).
Lastly, the report could benefit from a clearer overview describing the change of registrar and registrant processes.