Summary

Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy Recommendations amending the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy and directs the CEO to develop an implementation plan.

Text

Whereas, on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Procedure Part B (IRTP Part B) addressing five charter questions. <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtpb/3.+WG+Charter>

Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011.

Whereas, the IRTP Part B Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined in the Charter.

Whereas, in relation to Recommendation #9, Part 2, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June 2011 to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9, Part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation.

Whereas, ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B WG which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm).

Whereas, comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the GNSO Council, and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council.

Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTPPart B Recommendation #9, Part 2.

Whereas, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendation and ICANN Staff proposal at its meeting on 19 January 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201201).

Whereas, the GNSO Council vote met and exceeded the required voting threshold to impose new obligations on ICANN contracted parties.

Whereas, after the GNSO Council vote, a 21-day public comment period was held on the approved recommendations, and the comments have been summarized and considered (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-rec9-part2-23jan12-en.htm).

Resolved (2012.03.16.02), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy Recommendations amending the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy set forth at http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm.

Resolved (2012.03.16.03), the CEO is to develop and complete an implementation plan for these Recommendations and continue communication with the community on such work.

Implementation Actions

  •  Develop and complete an implementation plan for the Recommendations
    • Responsible entity:  CEO
    • Due date:  None provided
    • Completion date:  Ongoing  
  • Communicate with the community regarding the plan
    • Responsible entity:  CEO
    • Due date:  None provided
    • Completion date:  Ongoing

Rationale  

Why is this issue addressed now?

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a consensus policy that was adopted in 2004 which provides for a straightforward process for registrants to transfer domain names between registrars. The GNSO Council established a series of five Working Groups (Parts A through E) to review and consider various revisions to this policy.

The IRTP Part B PDP is the second in a series of five scheduled PDPs addressing areas for improvements in the existing policy. The IRTP Part B Working Group has addressed five issues focusing on domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name, and lock status. Most of these recommendations have already been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. In relation to Recommendation #9, Part 2, a proposal from staff was requested. Following consultations with the IRTP Part B Working Group and a public comment forum on the Staff Proposal, GNSO Council approved IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, Part 2 and the staff proposal unanimously at its meeting on 19 January 2012 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201201). The IRTP Part B PDP Final Report received unanimous consensus support from the IRTP Part B Working Group as well as the GNSO Council.

What is the proposal being put forward for Board consideration?

Recommendation #9, Part 2 states that denial reason #7 of the IRTP should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked. The ICANN Staff proposal, taking into account the deletion of denial reason #7 as previously approved by the ICANNBoard, proposes to expand the existing section 5 (EPP - based Registry Requirements for Registrars) of the IRTP to address "Registrar Lock Status". The proposed modifications to the IRTP can be found in redline form in the ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, Part 2 [PDF, 490 KB] which is included in the Annex. The main elements of the proposed modifications are:Registrar may only impose a lock that would prohibit transfer of the domain name if it includes in its registration agreement the terms and conditions for imposing such lock and obtains express consent from the Registered Name Holder: and

Registrar must remove the "Registrar Lock" status within five (5) calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request, if the Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to remove the "Registrar Lock" status.
Outreach conducted by the Working Group to solicit views of groups that are likely to be impacted:

Public comment forums were held by the Working Group on the initiation of thePDP, the Initial Report, the proposed Final Report and the Staff Proposal on Recommendation 9, Part 2 in additional to regular updates to the GNSO Council as well as workshops to inform and solicit the input from the ICANN Community at ICANN meetings (see, for example, Brussels Meeting and San Francisco Meeting). Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements were submitted (seehttps://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtpb/IRTP+Part+B). All comments received were reviewed and considered by the IRTP Part B PDP WG (see section 6 of the IRTP Part B Final Report [PDF, 972 KB]). In addition, as prescribed by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum was held on the recommendations to be considered by the ICANN Board.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Following the closing of the public comment forum on the staff proposal (no comments received) and the submission of the proposal to the GNSO Council, the Intellectual Property Constituency submitted a number of comments, which were considered within the GNSO Council deliberations on the proposal. However, no further changes were deemed necessary to the recommendation as a result of those comment. The staff proposal and the subsequent motion adopting the recommendation were adopted unanimously.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the Board[PDF, 576 KB], as well as the summary of public comments and staff's response to those comments.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The recommendation was developed by the IRTP Part B Working Group following the GNSO Policy Development Process as outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws and has received the unanimous support from the GNSO Council. As outlined in the ICANN Bylaws, the Council’s unanimous (supermajority) support for the motion obligates the Board to adopt the recommendation unless by a vote of more than 66% the Board determines that the policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. In addition, transfer-related issues are the number one area of complaint according to data from ICANN Contractual Compliance. Improvements to the IRTP have the potential to reduce the number of complaints, in addition to providing clarity and predictability to registrants as well as registrars.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Improvements to the IRTP have the potential to reduce the number of complaints, in addition to providing clarity and predictability to registrants as well as registrars. Adoption of the recommendations will require changes in processes for registrars, but these are considered to have a minimum impact and necessary in order to address the issues that are part of this policy development process. The recommendations, if implemented, would usefully clarify and enhance the IRTP, to the advantage of all parties concerned.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget), the community, and/or the public?

Apart from those changes required in process for registrars as outlined above, no other fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN, the community, and/or the public are expected.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS if the Board approves the proposed recommendations.

Other Related Resolutions

Additional Information

Explanatory text does not modify or override Resolutions.  See Board Resolutions Page for more information.

Note: The "Add Comment" box below is for sharing information about implementation of this resolution. Off-topic comments will be removed.

  • No labels