Comment Close



Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C

No Statementn/an/an/an/an/an/a
Caitlin Tubergen

For information about this PC, please click here 



The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 


The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.



The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.

  • No labels


  1. In July 2012, the ALAC submitted a Statement on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report <>: 

    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.

    The ALAC didn't submit a Statement on the Final Report <>.

  2. My recommendation is that ALAC really has nothing further to add other than what we commented on the initial report.  We should still support the proposed measures that support the ability of registrants to change registrars while formalising processes that will provide safeguards to inhibit hijacking - maybe one sentence just to say we support the report.

    The one thing we could say is to stress the need for a much clearer statement easily found on the website that describes the transfer process from the registrant perspective - it is not easy to find now and would be a complete mystery for those registrants who would like to know what processes will be followed if they want to change registrars.

    The one change between ITRP-C and IRTP-D was that in 'C', registrants could have been parties to the TDRP dispute process.  After a lot of discussion in the IRTP-D WG, this was changed so that they cannot now be parties to thoe disuptes. In the implementation of the IRTP-D, this issue should be followed up.

    1. Holly, I am a bit confused. The PC is asking specifically about how they have interpreted specific recommendations, where the wording was unclear or not sufficiently specific or did not contemplate certain circumstances. As I understand it, they are looking for comments on whether we believe that they have made reasonable choices.

  3. Alan.   Having read the amended Transfer policy that incorporates  changes recommended by the IRTP-C WG, I think they pretty well reflect what the WG recommended.  So I still think the only thing we need to say (if at all) is that we think the proposed changes reflect what the WG recommended (and was accepted by the Board).

    Again, if we are to make any statement on this issue, it is that the actual transfer process is not easily understood, and that a simple (as much as is possible) explanation should be somewhere on the website so that registrants can understand the processes required in transferring registrars.

    So if we do comment, it should be two sentences:

    ALAC supports the changes  in the TRansfer Policy proposed by the Implementation WG.  ALAC recommends, however, that the GNSO itself, or through the implementation WG, develop an easily understood document for registrants on the processes to be followed if they wish to transfer registrars that is easily located on the ICANN website.

    1. Thanks Holly. I agree with the intent of what you are saying.

      • if all we are going to say on the implementation details is that we support it, then no statement is necessary.
      • For the lack of user-oriented documentation, sending that message may well be a good thing to do, but the staff who this PC is targeted at are not likely the correct people. If we do want to make such a recommendation, I suggest that we have At-Large Staff inquire as to where such a message should be sent.

      I think that this means we do not need a statement.

      1. Hi Alan


        And I do think it would be helpful for ICANN staff to follow up.  As you are aware, the transfer process is really complex, particularly with the safeguards that are being proposed.  So registrants really do need somewhere to go to understand the process - in plain English.