RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Recommendation for Positive Confirmation of Transfers by Losing Registrar

["Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marika,

Thanks for the background.  I agree that some less reputable registrars may
choose to ignore the requirement to confirm the transfer with the
registrant.  However, if the transfer contact is informed at the time that
they submit their transfer request that the losing registrar will be
confirming the transfer with the registrant within X period of time, if the
losing registrar fails to send out the standardized confirmation FOA, they
can file a complaint with ICANN.  If ICANN receives numerous complaints
regarding a specific registrar, it will be very clear that the registrar is
not in compliance with the IRTP and the registrar should be given an
appropriate amount of time to cure the issue.  

 

I believe that we are operating in a very different time from when the
original Policy on the Transfer of Sponsorship of Registrations Between
Registrars was done and even when the current IRTP was adopted and it may
make sense to require a positive confirmation from the losing registrar.
The policy is very specific in the reasons why a registrar may deny a
transfer and, as mentioned above, it will be very apparent if a registrar is
not complying.  We can discuss more on the call.  Thanks.

 

 



Verisign


Barbara Steele



        

 

 

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:01 AM
To: Steele, Barbara; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Recommendation for Positive Confirmation of
Transfers by Losing Registrar

 

Barbara and all,

 

I've discussed this proposal internally and concern has been expressed about
the following part of the proposal: 'Failure by the Registrant to respond
within the 5 day pendingTransfer grace period would result in the transfer
request being automatically denied or Nacked'. Apparently one of the reasons
why the IRTP was developed in the first place was that pre-IRTP, transfers
had to be confirmed by the losing registrar which resulted in many transfers
being denied because emails were not received, never sent or additional
layers of confirmation added. As a result, it was agreed in the IRTP that
the gaining registrar must confirm the transfer and the losing registrar may
confirm the transfer. Here you can find one of the position papers
explaining the problem with the original approach (requiring approval from
the registrant by the losing registrar):
www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/pdf00003.pdf. 

 

An alternative approach might be to indeed require that the losing registrar
informs / notifies the registrant of the transfer that has been requested,
but not to allow no response from the registrant as a reason to deny the
transfer. In this way, it could still reduce potential conflicts between
admin contact and registrant and reduce the need to undo transfers as any
potential conflict would hopefully become apparent at this stage, before the
transfer is completed.

 

With best regards,

 

Marika

 

On 18/01/11 17:23, "Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

All,

In follow up to our weekly IRTP PDP B call this week, here is a summary of

the suggestion that I made to address the issue raised in Charter Question

B:  

 

Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed,

especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact

(AC).  The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how

this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar.

 

Currently Section 3 of the IRTP stipulates that "A Registrar of Record can

choose independently to confirm the intent of the Registered Name Holder

when a notice of a pending transfer is received from the Registry. The

Registrar of Record must do so in a manner consistent with the standards set

forth in this agreement pertaining to Gaining Registrars. In order to ensure

that the form of the request employed by the Registrar of Record is

substantially administrative and informative in nature and clearly provided

to the Transfer Contact for the purpose of verifying the intent of the

Transfer Contact, the Registrar of Record must use the FOA.

The FOA shall be communicated in English, and any dispute arising out of a

transfer request, shall be conducted in the English language. Registrars may

choose to communicate with the Transfer Contact in additional languages.

However, the Registrar choosing to exercise such option is responsible for

the accuracy and completeness of the translation into such additional

non-English version of the FOA. Further, such non-English communications

must follow the processes and procedures set forth in this policy. This

includes but is not limited to the requirement that no Registrar shall add

any additional information to the FOA used to obtain the consent of the

Transfer Contact in the case of a transfer request. 

This requirement does not preclude the Registrar of Record from marketing to

its existing customers through separate communications. 

The FOA should be sent by the Registrar of Record to the Transfer Contact as

soon as operationally possible, but must be sent not later than twenty-four

(24) hours after receiving the transfer request from the Registry Operator.

Failure by the Registrar of Record to respond within five (5) calendar days

to a notification from the Registry regarding a transfer request will result

in a default "approval" of the transfer.

In the event that a Transfer Contact listed in the Whois has not confirmed

their request to transfer with the Registrar of Record and the Registrar of

Record has not explicitly denied the transfer request, the default action

will be that the Registrar of Record must allow the transfer to proceed. . .

. . "

A possible solution would be to recommend that this section be modified to

require that the Registrar of Record/Losing Registrar be required to confirm

the transfer out with the Registered Name Holder/Registant.  The Registrar

of Record has access to the contact information for the Registrant and could

modify their systems to automatically send out the Standardized Form for

Losing Registrars ("Confirmation FOA") to the Registrant.  Failure by the

Registrant to respond within the 5 day pendingTransfer grace period would

result in the transfer request being automatically denied or Nacked.  At the

time that the transfer is requested via the Gaining Registrar, the Transfer

Contact that requested the transfer would be informed that positive

confirmation by the Registrant is required to complete the transfer and that

the Registrant will be receiving the Confirmation FOA from the Registrar of

Record.

 

I, personally, am seeing more and more transactions that I conduct on the

internet requiring a positive confirmation within a fairly short window of

time (as little as 1 hour in some cases) so it seems reasonable to me that

this may be a viable option for standardizing how Registrars handle the

Registrant's ability to override the AC as well as resolve the issue of

access to the Registrant contact information since the Registrar of Record

is responsible for collecting this information.  

 

Per Michele's request, please provide feedback (pros and cons) to this

suggested approach.  Many thanks.

 

 

 

Barbara Steele

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature