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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michele,

As I said, I think Simonetta has done a fine job of explaining the
rationale, contrary to the majority WG opinion.  To shorten it up even
further, I view the mandatory lock as more of a registrar protectionism
tactic than a registrant protection.  

To Paul's point about data, I believe the number of hijacks that occur now
and/or would be prevented by this lock is a tiny number.  I do not think it
justifies such a draconian measure, which would make it much more difficult
to transfer IP assets.  I really do not even like that GoDaddy and other
registrars can voluntarily impose this lock, but will not argue for an
outright prohibition at this point.  

I generally agree that more data, and certainly a great deal more community
input, is necessary to support any change to this policy.

Hope this helps, I cannot make the call today as I am due in court for a
client.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon ::
Blacknight
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:54 AM
To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger; <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] 60 day lock minority viewpoint


Mike

It would be helpful if you were to explain the rationale behind this or are
you planning on joining the call today?

Regards

Michele


On 24 May 2011, at 13:49, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> 
> I agree with Sedo's minority statement, with thanks to Simonetta for
drafting it so clearly.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sedo :: Simonetta
Batteiger
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:54 AM
> To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] 60 day lock minority viewpoint
> 
> 
> Hi Everybody,
> 
> I would like to add a minority viewpoint to the following section of our
final report (language still needs adjustment, I'm not sure in what format a
minority viewpoint would usually be written):
> 
> [Recommendation #7: The WG notes that the problem of domain transfer
'hopping' between registrars is a known issue, and can be used to thwart
anti-hijacking issues, as well as create other enforcement / takedown
problems. The WG notes that the 60-day post-transfer lock is currently
optional (IRTP Reason for Denial #9), and that most large registrars follow
this practice. The WG, therefore, recommends moving reason for denial #8
('The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in
the registry Whois record for the domain name.') and #9 ('A domain name is
within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred
(apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where
both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution
process so directs)') out of the criteria for which registrars MAY deny a
transfer, and create a new section for these situations under which
registrars SHALL deny a tra!
> nsfer. The WG would like to emphasize that reason of denial #9 relates to
a transfer, not to a change of control (change of registrant). ]
> 
> Minority viewpoint:
> Based on feedback received from registrants, some registrars and also
several domain marketplaces I disagree with this recommendation for the
following reasons:
> 1) There is considerable concern in the domain community about placing
further restrictions on domain transfers. There is no quantifiable data on
the amount of hijacking cases vs. the amount of regular and legitimate
domain name transfers. Placing additional burdens on legitimate transfer
activity does not seem justified when there is no data on the frequency of
domain hijacking cases. In addition there is no data on which subset of
hijacked domains start transfer hopping from registrar to registrar multiple
times. 
> 2) There are other ways to prevent domain name transfer hopping after a
hijacking has happened: it would e.g. be possible to stop this behavior by
placing a registry lock on the name the moment a TEAC communication in
regards to a hijacking case has been started through RADAR.
> 3) The recommendation listed above will not prevent hijackings from
happening - it will however place additional burdens on regular transfer
activity. This language would e.g make it harder to transfer a domain back
should an error have been made, makes it harder to consolidate a domain
portfolio in one location (which in itself poses risks for registrants) or
disallows for legitimate transfer activity with multiple transfers within a
two month period. More focus should be placed on preventing hijacking cases
in the first place rather than attempting to cure one of the symptoms with a
measure that has undesirable consequences for legitimate transfer activity.
> 4) No feedback from the community has been received on this recommendation
language. The language suggests a significant change of the IRTP policy and
introduces a concept of a mandatory domain lock into a policy that so far
only knows voluntary locks. I would like to see further discussion on this
item to ensure that all voices in the community are heard about this
proposed change to the IRTP policy. This discussion should include some
background on why the current policy language has been worded as MAY rather
than SHALL.
> 5) We will receive data on the frequency of domain name hijackings through
the TEAC activity logging. We should wait for this data to then be able to
quantify the issue in relation to the amount of legitimate transfer activity
to see if such drastic policy changes are justified.
> 6) Based on a poll in relation to this question we saw one third of
respondents disagree with this recommendation. 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if this language is clear or if you have
questions/comments about one of these statements. We can discuss this in
today's call.
> Best regards,
> Simonetta
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon ::
Blacknight
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:27 PM
> To: Diaz, Paul
> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>; Marika Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from ICANN Compliance
> 
> 
> I'd agree with Paul
> 
> I'd also want compliance to give us assurances that any "extenuating
circumstances" excuse could not be abused ie. while one *could* accept that
there was something beyond anyone's control that made it impossible for a
registrar to respond (I'm thinking earthquakes or other BIG issues) once
that compliance wouldn't allow for "repeat offenders"
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele
> 
> 
> On 23 May 2011, at 14:03, Diaz, Paul wrote:
> 
>> I'm hard pressed to come up with any "extenuating circumstance" that
would prevent a gaining registrar from RESPONDING within four hours (again,
resolution is not required in this time frame).  If members of the WG feel
such a caveat is necessary, however, I would insist that the exception be
very tightly defined - otherwise the entire purpose of the Emergency
Transfer Contact (I agree with the Registrar Liaison's input, and like
Marika's formulation) would be undermined.
>> 
>> Regards, P
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:06 AM
>> To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from ICANN Compliance
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> In response to clarifications requested from ICANN Compliance in relation
to enforcement / non-compliance with consensus policies, I can share the
following:
>>      . All ICANN Consensus Policies are incorporated into the RAA, it
makes no difference whether the obligation is reflected in a Consensus
Policy (IRTP) or be made part of the RAA. Accordingly,  ICANN Compliance
will follow the same processes for escalated compliance actions and pursue
whatever sanctions or remedies available under the RAA.
>>      . At the same time, in relation to the EAC, there might be certain
limitations with regard to how easily compliance can pursue non-compliant
registrars. For example, there might be valid reasons why the gaining
registrar did not respond within 4 hours which means Compliance would have
to try and verify or validate the explanation/reasons provided by the
gaining registrar. As a result, compliance may not be able to make a quick
and straight forward determination due to the nature of the issue or causes
of non-compliance.
>>      . A possible enhancement could be to add 'absent extenuating
circumstances' prior to 'Responses are required within 4 hours of the
initial request extenuating circumstances', although it would be helpful if
the WG would provide examples of what it would consider extenuating
circumstances.
>> You'll find attached the slide presentation that was mentioned during
last week's meeting which outlines the different escalation paths available
to the Compliance Staff under the RAA.
>> 
>> With best regards,
>> 
>> Marika
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://invadeeurope.eu/
> http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/
> http://rss.me/
> 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
> 
> PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting:
http://domainoffers.me/
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://b.log.ie/
http://invadeeurope.eu/
http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/
http://rss.me/
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

PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting:
http://domainoffers.me/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845