[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Recommendation #5 - Change of registrant

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Recommendation #5: The WG does recognize that the current language of denial 
reason #6 is not clear and leaves room for interpretation especially in 
relation to the term‘voluntarily’ and recommends therefore that this language 
is expanded and clarified to tailor it more to explicitly address 
registrar-specific (i.e. non-EPP) locks in order to make it clear 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 andauthentication. This denial reason could potentially 
be split into two reasons of registrant objection for denial -- (1) express 
objection to a particulartransfer, and (2) a general indefinite request to deny 
all transfer requests. The WG recommends that ICANN staff is asked to develop 
an implementation plan for community consideration including proposed changes 
to the IRTP to reflect this recommendation.

Alternative language proposed by James to replace denial reason #6:
6.  Express objection to the transfer by the Transfer Contact.
Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or 
electronic means) by the Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer 
request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the 
Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the objection must 
be provided with the express and informed consent of the Transfer Contact on an 
opt-in basis, and the Registrar must provide a reasonably accessible method to 
remove the lock on a timely basis, subject to the terms, conditions, and 
limitations of the Registrar's Registration Agreement with the TransferContact.

Proposed modified version by Barbara Steele:
6. Express objection to the transfer by the Transfer Contact.
Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or 
electronic means) by the Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer 
request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the 
Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the objection must 
be provided with the express and informed consent of the Transfer Contact on an 
opt-in basis.

Comments (NEW):

 *   Re. alternative proposed by James: If this is subject to the registration 
agreement, it could potentially defeat the purpose of the IRTP (or this 
recommendation) as there is no clarity as to which one would prevail, if there 
is a conflict between the terms of the registration and the IRTP. In other 
words, the registrar could potentially argue that the registrant "has agreed" 
(I.e. Informed consent) to a 60-day or 2 year transfer prohibition period. This 
could potentially be addressed by deleting 'subject to the terms, conditions, 
and limitations of the Registrar's Registration Agreement with the Transfer 
Contact' from the proposed language.
 *   Re. alternative proposed by Barbara: This version does not mandate the 
removal of the lock so the proposed changes do not seem to provide much more 
clarity but merely maintain (or expand the status quo. The WG might want to 
consider adding the wording "and upon request by the Transfer Contact, the 
Registrar must remove the lock or provide a reasonably accessible method for 
the Transfer Contact to remove the lock within five (5) calendar days" after 
the word "basis".

Please share your comments, suggestions and/or proposed edits with the mailing 
list.

Marika