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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not support Staff's proposed amendment to Denial Reason #6 (below).
This is exactly the kind of "unintended consequence" that we need to
guard against.  If registrars were now only allowed to lock a domain
once "the informed consent of the registrant [had been] given on an
opt-in basis," it's quite likely that some domain holders will fail to
do so and those names will be more vulnerable to hijacking or theft.  

 

This WG should be focused on clarifying the Transfer Policy's terms to
have a lock REMOVED, not raising the bar against providing basic
security in the first place.

 

Sincerely, P

 

________________________________

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 4:36 AM
To: Diaz, Paul; rob.golding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback on Charter Question E

 

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
> 
>