[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

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 
registrant change.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

With best regards,

Marika

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

Hello Danny,

I have been asked to respond to your email addressed to Doug dated 23 October 
2009.

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 
http://www.nullamatix.com/godaddy-nightmare-express-written-objection-to 
transfe/ 
<http://www.nullamatix.com/godaddy-nightmare-express-written-objection-to%20transfe/>
 .

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 
obligations.

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.

Regards,

Dave


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
david.giza@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:david.giza@xxxxxxxxx>

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/> .


-----Original Message-----
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


Danny,
I don't have an immediate response to this note, nor will this week,
but will be happy to investigate and respond in November.

Best,
Doug
--
Doug Brent
Chief Operating Officer
ICANN

V: +1.310.301.3871
M: +1.650.996.4447

On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

> Doug,
>
> 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 
> http://www.nullamatix.com/godaddy-nightmare-express-written-objection-to-transfe/
>
> 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