DraftMotionIRTPPartAUpdated18March2009.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.

 

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.

 

Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer provisions [i] do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar.

 

 

 


[i] From the Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars: ‘ Transfer of the sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one Registrar as the result of (i) acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or (ii) lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization with the Registry Operator, may be made according to the following procedure:

(a)       The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD and must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator for the Registry TLD.

(b)       ICANN must certify in writing to Registry Operator that the transfer would promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may be threatened by the actual or imminent business failure of a Registrar.

 

Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make the necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for transfers involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves registrations of more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining Registrar a one-time flat fee of US$ 50,000.

  • No labels