[gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
- To: "gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
- From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 03:40:44 -0700
Dear drafting group members and Councilors,
Please see the summary of public comments below - the single comment on-topic
was posted by Danny Younger and is included in full in the summary. As the GNSO
handling of this PDP has concluded and the outcome is now due for the ICANN
Board, I would appreciate comments to the statements made by Danny Younger, in
order to fully inform the Board's handling of the PDP outcome.
Very best regards
Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions
The comment period ran from 15 September 2008 to 6 October 2008. Two comments
were received of which one off-topic (from Shantanu Panigrahi) expressing
concerns over a particular transfer case and one comment (from Danny Younger)
objecting to a part of the definition in the proposed new text for Denial
Reason #9. The proposed text for Denial Reason #9 is as follows:
"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). "Transferred" shall only mean that an
inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred
in accordance with the procedures of this policy."
Danny Younger states the following:
"With regard to Denial Reason #9, I take issue with the clause "or transfer to
the Registrar of Record" included therein.
In the first instance, this clause is out of scope as the clarifications
requested were only to pertain to inter-registrar transfers.
In the second place, the clause serves to validate the unacceptable practice
known as the Registrar Direct Transfer, i.e. "Should you
choose not to renew your domain name during any applicable grace period, you
agree that we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer the domain name
to a third party on your behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to
as a "Direct Transfer")."
Third, the clause is anticompetitive. With this language, the following
scenario would unfold:
1. a registrant doesn't renew his domain name and the domain is transfered to
the registrar of record
2. The registrar auctions the domain to a third party
3. The third-party is prevented from readily transferring the registration to
another registrar because of the 60-day lock. This practice serves to keep most
Direct Transfers at the incumbent registrar (as such impeding free competition
for domain name registration services)."