[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
- To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:21:16 -0800
Please find below the response from David Giza, Senior Director, ICANN
Contractual Compliance, to a question raised by Danny Younger in the RAA WG
that might also be of interest to the IRTP Part B WG as it relates to the
60-day lock that is applied by some registrars like GoDaddy.com following a
Please let me know if you have any questions.
With best regards,
From: David Giza
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Danny Younger
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
I have been asked to respond to your email addressed to Doug dated 23 October
I presume the "major registrar" you are referring to is GoDaddy.com and the
complaints are about its practice of denying transfer requests within 60 days
of a change to the Whois information of domain names sponsored by GoDaddy.com
(i.e., 60-day lock). I also reviewed the specific article and transfer
complaint referenced at
At the outset, it's helpful to point out the distinction between changes to
Whois information where the registrant simply updates the Whois contact
information (i.e., Whois Update) versus where Whois information is updated as a
result of the registered name holder being changed from an existing registrant
A to a new registrant B (Registrant Change). We understand GoDaddy.com's
60-day lock only applies to the Registrant Change scenario.
If the 60-day lock is applied to the Whois Update scenario, it would be
inconsistent with the Registrar Advisory Concerning the Inter-Registrar
Registrant Change Policy (3 April 2008)
http://www.icann.org/en/announcemnets/advisory-03apr08.htm (Advisory), since
registrants and registrars are obligated to keep Whois information up-to-date.
Requiring registrants to agree to such terms would contradict with these
The Advisory, however, only addresses mandatory updates to Whois contact
information, not a transfer or assignment to a new registrant (i.e., the
Registrant Change scenario, which is not a service that registrars are required
to provide under the RAA). Further, the transfer policy
http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm does not prohibit registrars
from requiring registrants to agree to the blocking of transfer requests as a
condition for registrar facilitation of optional services such as the transfer
of a registration to a new registrant.
We understand GoDaddy.com's 60-day lock is a voluntary opt-in process where
registrants are made aware of and agree to the restriction that the domain name
is not to be transferred for 60-days following the completion of transfer. As
such, this practice is not prohibited by the transfer policy. Registrants are
free to transfer to different registrars if they're not satisfied with either
the service or terms of service provided by their current provider (i.e.,
registrant "A" could transfer the name to a new registrar and then request the
change of registrant to "B" at a registrar that is willing to offer that
service without asking the new registrant to agree to reject transfer requests).
I hope the above answers your questions 1 and 2. As to your question 3,
ICANN's compliance and enforcement efforts are focused on protecting
registrants and preserving the stability and security of the DNS. To this end,
ICANN staff has and will continue to ensure all registrars comply with the
terms of the RAA and ICANN policies, regardless of the size or operation of the
registrars. During calendar year 2010, ICANN will conduct an IRTP audit to
determine the level of Registrar compliance with the transfer policy. This work
will assist ICANN in its continuing enforcement of the policy.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please contact
me directly at ICANN.
David A. Giza
Senior Director, Contractual Compliance
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
4676 Admiralty Way || Suite 330
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292|| United States of America
Phone (310) 301-3859 || Fax (310) 823-8649 || Mobile (310) 920-0468
Did you know? ICANN is responsible for the global coordination of the
Internet's system of unique identifiers. These include domain names like (.com,
.net., .org., .us, .info, and .jobs), as well as the addresses used in a
variety of Internet protocols. Computers use these identifiers to reach each
other over the Internet. Learn more at http://icann.org <http://icann.org/> .
From: owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Doug Brent
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Danny Younger
Cc: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Margie Milam; Denise Michel; Kurt Pritz
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
I don't have an immediate response to this note, nor will this week,
but will be happy to investigate and respond in November.
Chief Operating Officer
On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
> Thank you for this advisory. I look forward to a better
> understanding of those contractual provisions that are deemed to be
> "hard to enforce".
> For several years now, registrants have been complaining (both
> anecdotally and in writing to the Compliance Department) that a
> major registrar has been violating the terms of the Consensus Policy
> on Transfers (even after the Staff publication of the 3 April '08
> Registrar Advisory Concerning the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy)
> by refusing to allow transfers subsequent to a WHOIS update.
> So let me ask: When we have a clear consensus policy supplemented
> by a clear advisory and yet we see that a problem is *still*
> ongoing, what exactly are we to fault and/or how should the
> situation best be addressed?
> (1) Is there some lack of clarity in the consensus policy and/or
> advisory language?
> (2) Are there no provisions by way of which ICANN can take action?
> (3) Is the Compliance Department simply unwilling to take action
> against a major player?
> Just today, another such complaint emerged -- please see
> If we are to assist in facilitating ICANN's contractual compliance
> initiatives it would be helpful to understand (using this particular
> example) the nature of the roadblocks that the compliance team is
> running into.
> Looking forward to any clarifications that may be offered,
> Danny Younger
------ End of Forwarded Message