RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] 60day lock recommendation

["Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger" <simonetta@xxxxxxxx>]

I had another thought on this over the weekend (weird that I'm even thinking 
about domain locks on a weekend)

The 60 day lock idea came up to prevent registrar hopping after a domain was 
hijacked. So we're probably all on the same page that the locking 
recommendation does not actually prevent the hijacking in the first place, it 
would merely make it easier to resolve the issue once it has already happened.

I'm wondering if introducing a second consequence to the initial EAC filing 
could "fix" the same issue.

Could be something like: EAC communication piece is logged through RADAR => an 
email goes out to the registry prompting to place a registry lock on the name 
until they hear from the registrars that either the issue got resolved OR the 
issue goes to dispute => the registry prevents further "hopping" of the domain 
that way...

Just an idea, I wanted to bring up. This may be a way to stop the registrar 
hopping in case of hijacking without having an impact on transfer locks around 
legitimate transfer requests.
Simonetta

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sedo :: Simonetta 
Batteiger
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 6:51 PM
To: ITRP-B Mailing List Mailing List
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] 60day lock recommendation

Hi Everybody,

I had a few more conversations with domain owners, some of our registrar 
partners and other members of the Sedo team and want to bring this feedback to 
your attention before we submit the final report on our work.

We had set up a poll to "assess the WG's view on the issue of the 60 day lock 
following a transfer (please note that this relates to a transfer between 
registrars, NOT a change of control)."
=> my question to this part is how do you tell these apart? How would a 
registrar in practice know when a transfer happens with or without change of 
control?
The current IRTP policy does not distinguish the two, would we then have to 
make recommendations on completely new language there? And isn't that getting 
into the much larger debate on the lack of a policy for transfers WITH 
ownership update at the same time? Which is part of what we do recommend to 
look into in another part of our report. I'm wondering if we should merely 
include a statement there stating that we recommend an issues report and one of 
the issues that should be looked at are the locks around transfers. By the time 
we would look at this we should then have some data from the EAC to judge how 
relevant this specific piece is in relation to the prevention of hijacking and 
in comparison to the number of legitimate domain transfers going through.

"The problem of domain transfer 'hopping' between registrars is a known issue, 
and could be used to thwart anti-hijacking issues, as well as create other 
enforcement / takedown problems."
=> I agree that it would help with this, but I want to make sure that our 
report reflects a viewpoint that while it may help with a subset of all 
hijacking cases it places additional hurdles on normal domain transfer 
activities. Domain owners tell us they do not want to have additional obstacles 
placed on their domain transfer activities. They specifically value the ability 
to be able to get a name unlocked upon request and moved for legitimate reasons 
and do not want to see this changed into a mandatory policy.

The 60-day post-transfer lock is currently optional (Reason for Denial #9 of 
the IRTP) and we're polling if it should be mandatory.
=> It is my opinion that we would suggest a significant change to the current 
IRTP policy by making this recommendation (as there currently is no such thing 
as a mandatory lock). I would not feel comfortable submitting our report 
including this recommendation without a commenting option for the community.

Finally looking at the doodle poll results I see that 25% of the respondents 
wanted to leave the item untouched, can somebody tell me what "level of 
support" does this translate to for this recommendation in our final report? If 
we choose to keep the existing language suggestion there, I would like to 
include a statement of opposition to this viewpoint.

Simonetta