RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Recommendation #9 - Requiring a positive confirmation of the transfer by the losing registrar

["Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team,

 

If I recall correctly, this recommendation is associated with Charter
Question B.

 

At a minimum, I support the 2nd bullet comment of requiring that the
Registrar of Record (RrOR) send a FOA to the Registrant (Rt).  Establishing
the requirement to seek a confirmation of the transfer by the RrOR does seem
to offer an additional layer of security to the overall transaction, but I
hesitate about the possible unintended consequence of implementing it.  The
position paper included below is near 10 years old, but some of elements
still seem to apply to today.  I need more information before I can support
the requirement of confirmation over just notification.

 

>From my personal experiences in transferring domains, it is during this
portion of the transfer process whereby I desire a confirmation from the
RrOR, because I would prefer the ability to immediately confirm this side of
the transfer process in hopes of completing the transaction within one or
two days versus waiting the five days for it to automatically process.
Perhaps the requirement of a transfer notification could enable this
process.  Regardless, this is most likely out of scope and therefore not
important to acknowledge this notion.

 

Lastly, I will point out that this segment of the IRTP process is shown in
the swim lane diagrams I provided for the eTRP recommendation.  The
tasks/activity boxes are highlighted with an orange color.  I invite you to
take a look, and perhaps this is a useful tool to determine unintended
consequence to any change.

 

Thank you, B

 

 

Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://infinityportals.com

720.839.5735

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Recommendation #9 - Requiring a positive
confirmation of the transfer by the losing registrar

 

Recommendation #9 (NEW): The WG proposes to modify section 3 of the IRTP to
require that the Registrar of Record/Losing Registrar be required to confirm
the transfer out with the Registered Name Holder/Registrant. 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. 

 

Comments to date: 

*       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/
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/pdf00003.pdf>
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.
*       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. 
*       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.

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

 

Marika