RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

If I recall correctly, we adopted the exact wording suggested by the
previous WG. See Annex 2 of their final report at:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf

I believe the drafting team understood that the phrase "or transfer to
the Registrar of Record" was included to clarify that it only applied if
a name was transferred from one registrar to a different registrar (the
latter becoming the Registrar of Record), not to endorse what Danny is
concerned about. 

I would not object to removing the phrase if it is confusing. So the
last sentence would simply read:

“Transferred” shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has
occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.”

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, October 07, 2008 5:40 am
To: "gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>, 
Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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
Olof Nordling

------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials
Definitions PDP
 
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).”