ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-trans-wg] Draft Priorities List

  • To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] Draft Priorities List
  • From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:58:44 -0500

All - here is the draft list of priorities based on our respective submissions. On our call, we will need to discuss whether or not this needs any fine tuning and how we should deal with those items that we have given a relatively low consensus priority (scoring a CT of 10 and higher, 10 being the median of the scores).

If you have any questions about the methodology, please let me know prior to the meeting as I would like to use our time on the call to focus on the substance of our report to the council and not the processes used.

Many thanks,



This prioritized list shows the mean response of each of the participants of the IRDX (InterRegistrar Domain Transfer) Policy prioritization subcommittee of the GNSO Council. This working group has been tasked with recommending policy development priorities to the GNSO Council in this subject area. These results were calculated by soliciting the priorities of each of the participants and then calculating the median response, or "central tendency" (CT). Responses were received from:

Barbara Steel
Tom Keller
Stacy King
Christian Curtis
Mike O'Connor
Paul McGrady
Tim Ruiz
Pam Miller
Ross Rader

Prioritized list of policy development questions re: IRDX

1. j. Whether there could be a way for registrars to make Registrant Email
Address data available to one another.  Currently there is no way of
automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address
is not a required field in the registrar Whois.  This slows down and/or
complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant
can overrule the Admin Contact. (CT5.0)

2. o. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should
be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see
also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm). (CT6.0)

3. g. Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in FOA) due to security concerns on use of email addresses
(potential for hacking or spoofing). (CT6.0)

4. e. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should
be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available
to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute
submissions. (CT7.0)

5. q. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not
be applied). (CT8.0)

6. h. Whether provisions on time-limiting FOAs should be implemented to avoid
fraudulent transfers out.  For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and
receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the
registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name
status, during which time the registrant or other registration information
may have changed.(CT9.0)

7. c. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are
needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and
Admin Contact.  The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the
AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the
registrar. (CT9.0)

8. d. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP on how to
handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred. (CT10.0)

9. m. Whether special provisions are needed for change of registrant
simultaneous to transfer or within a period after transfer. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking
cases. (CT10.0)

10. n. Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy. (CT10.0)

11. r. Whether registrants should be able to retrieve authInfo codes from third
parties other than the registrar. (CT12.0)

12. s. Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling “partial bulk
transfers” between registrars – that is, transfers involving a number of
names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar. (CT12.0)

13. k. Whether additional provisions relating to transfer of registrations involving
various types of Whois privacy services should be developed as part of
the policy. (CT13.0)

14. b. Whether review of registry-level dispute decisions is needed (some
complaints exist about inconsistency).(CT13.0)

15. i. Whether requirements should be in place for Registrars of Record to send
an FOA, and/or receive the FOA back from Transfer Contact before
acking a transfer.(13.0)

16. a. Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and
implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on
registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf).(14.0)

17. l. Whether additional requirements regarding Whois history should be
developed, for change tracking of Whois data and use in resolving

18. p. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries
use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.(16.0)

19. f. Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for
registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options
available to registrants.(CT16.0)

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy