DraftMotionIRTPPartAUpdated16March2009.doc

 

 

Draft Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP)

 

Whereas:

 

On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on three “new” issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in 2008 addressing (1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid “spoofing,” and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for “partial bulk transfers” between registrars;

 

Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on [date];

 

Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

 

Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council: (1) carry out an assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS’ costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes. (2) suggest that future IRTP working groups consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact; and, (3) clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk transfer of domain names in only one gTLD; and

 

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;

 

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

 

To encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS’ costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes .

 

To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact.

 

To clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions may also be applied to a bulk transfer of domain names consisting of all domain names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar, instead of all domain names under management of the respective registrar.

  • No labels