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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Simonetta

Thanks for the feedback .. 


On 31 Jan 2011, at 23:07, Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger wrote:

> I disagree with the automatic denial of the transfer in case the registrant 
> does not positively confirm with the losing registrar within 5 days of the 
> transfer request.
> 
> A registrant should receive two emails in case of a transfer (one from the 
> gaining and one from the losing registrar). Based on the current wording of 
> the standard FOA language a registrant must think they’re “done” with the 
> confirmation when they’ve responded to the email from the gaining registrar. 
> The wording of that email clearly states you need to take action confirming 
> the transfer. The wording of the FOA template the losing registrar is 
> required to send states:
> 
>  “If you want to proceed with this transfer, you do not need to respond to 
> this message.” 
> 
> So if we wanted to change the process, we’d have to touch the losing and 
> gaining registrar’s standard FOA wording as well. I think that’s unnecessary 
> because the main benefit of the losing registrar’s confirmation requirement 
> would be to make sure the registrant truly wants the registrar change. If 
> they don’t want the change the most important thing for them to know is how 
> to get in touch with their current registrar, which will be achieved by 
> providing that information in the FOA email sent by the losing registrar.

Currently not all registrars send the emails .. 

A lot of those that do send the emails also include language (and links) so 
that the recipient can either expedite the transfer or stop it there and then 
eg. click here to stop this transfer (and the opposite)

>  
> So I do support the requirement for the losing registrar to inform the 
> registrant about the transfer request they received and give clear 
> instructions on how to get in touch if they did not authorize the transfer.
>  
> Taking a look at the FOA templates here http://icann.org/en/transfers/ I 
> thought of something else:
>  
> Currently the FOA for the losing registrar can be sent to the registrant 
> email OR the AdminC email.
> How about requiring the losing registrar to send their FOA to the registrant 
> OR to better to both the registrant AND the Admin C email?

What if the Admin C is a web designer / web developer / IT Company that wants 
to block the transfer?


>  
>  
> Finally I had a thought about an issue with FOA wording that also touches on 
> recommendation # 4:
> The language of the current FOA standard text (for both the losing as well as 
> the gaining registrar) is something that should be included as an issue for 
> all transfers with ownership change.
> The current FOA wording makes little sense in case of transfers with 
> ownership change and should be updated. 
> A place to look for some best practices could be the ccTLDs that have rules 
> around the ACK calls for domain trades that differ from the ones for a simple 
> transfer without ownership change. This may be something to adopt with the 
> gTLDs as well. Some thought should also be given to the timing of the losing 
> registrant’s confirmation.
>  
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:02 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/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

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845