[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Some IRTP-B "Loose Ends"

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team:

As discussed during our last call, I'm concerned that the EAC issue had
dominated our conversations, and as a result some topics were being
overlooked in our recommendations.

One of these was the the 60-day lock following a previous transfer.  We
noted that the problem of domain transfer 'hopping' between registrars
was a known issue, and could be used to thwart anti-hijacking issues, as
well as create other enforcement / takedown problems.  We noted that the
60-day post-transfer lock is optional (Reason for Denial #9), and that
most large registrars followed this practice, but that it was not
mandatory.  So, therefore, I think we have three options here:

(1) leave this topic untouched in our recommendations 
(2) Create some language that indicates this is a voluntary best
practice
(3) Create some language for inclusion in the IRTP that makes this
mandatory for all registrars.


Having discussed this internally, I can report our preference would be
for option #3.  I propose moving Reason for Denial #8 (60 days after
creation) and #9 (60 days after transfer) out of the criteria for which
registrars MAY deny a transfer, and creating a new section for these
situations, under which registrars SHALL deny a transfer.  Thoughts?

Additionally, when modifying the language for Reason for Denial 6, I
want to ensure that this provides some degree of clarity for registrars
and registrants, without prohibiting existing domain security products
and services.  We can discuss on our call Tuesday, but I want to ensure
that we do not confuse an issue by attempting to make the language
clearer.

Finally, as noted during the call, we should add an "EAC Follow Up" task
to a later IRTP working group (e.g. IRTP-E), to see how this program is
progression and gauge its effectiveness.

Thanks--

J.