Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback on Charter Question E

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

In response to the comments made by Paul and Rob, as we understand the process, 
if a domain is "in an EPP consistent lock status", then it is not possible to 
initiate a domain transfer, and therefore, it’s not possible to deny such a 
transfer. Based on that, we suggested that the substance of denial reason #7 
(that registrars have to provide a reasonable means for registrants to request 
the removal of any lock status) should be discussed elsewhere in the policy and 
not included in the list of reasons why it's OK for a registrar to deny a 
pending transfer request. (Of course, we might have misunderstood how the 
process works, and if so, please feel free to clarify or correct).

In addition, in relation to the discussions on Charter Question C and denial 
reason #6, it might be beneficial to expand and clarify this language to tailor 
it more to explicitly address registrar-specific (i.e. non-EPP) locks in order 
to make it clear(er) that the registrant must give some sort of informed opt-in 
express consent to having such a lock applied, and the registrant must be able 
to have the lock removed upon reasonable notice and authentication. This denial 
reason could potentially be split into two reasons of registrant objection for 
denial -- (1) express objection to a particular transfer, and (2) a general 
indefinite request to deny all transfer requests. A proposed modification might 
be as follows:

"6. Express objection to the transfer from the Transfer Contact. Such objection 
could take the form of a specific request made by the registrant to deny a 
particular pending transfer request, or a general request made by the 
registrant that the registrar temporarily or indefinitely deny all transfer 
requests, but in either case the request from the registrant must be based on 
the informed consent of the registrant given on an opt-in basis, and the 
registrar must make available a reasonable and secure means for the registrant 
to revoke the request on a timely basis, unilaterally and without conditions."

With best regards,

Marika

On 23/08/10 15:19, "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> I support Rob's point.  This WG needs to be ever-vigilant about not
> creating "unintended consequences" - especially in matters of domain
> name security.  Abolishing Denial Reason #7 likely would have the effect
> of negating the enhanced security offered by some Registry Operators'
> registry lock services.  I don't think that's what anyone intends...
>
> If members of the WG really believe that Denial Reason #7 needs
> clarification, perhaps the following extra text (in CAPS) will help?
>
> A domain name was already in AN EPP-CONSISTENT "lock status" provided
> that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means
> for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
>
> Regards, P
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Golding
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 8:54 AM
> To: 'Marika Konings'; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback on Charter Question E
>
>
>> 2. Denial reason #7 - this seems superfluous as a ground for
> denying
>> a transfer request. If a domain is in "lock status", the registry
>> cannot initiate a transfer request (so there will not be a ground for
>> denial based on #7)
>
> That applies where the "lock" is one set by/at the registry, rather than
> additional lock-levels that some of us registrars offer our clients.
>
> If one of our registrants request their domain is "super-locked" then
> all
> attempts at transfer will be automatically denied, until the registrant
> decides to remove that restriction - it's one of the ways the management
> of
> a business stop "upstart" in their IT department moving their domains
> around
> without authorisation.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>