ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[irtp-b-initial-report]


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

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy

  • To: irtp-b-initial-report@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
  • From: Peter Stevenson <peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:33:47 +1000

Hi,

Domain name hijacking is a serious issue for our industry, one that needs to be 
addressed.  We are keen for ICANN to implement policies that would reduce the 
frequency of domain name hijacking. The ETRP is only a bandaid and industry 
security issues will need to be addressed at some point in the future.

Whilst we have not had the problem of domain name(s) being transferred out 
without the Registrants approval, we have had a case of a domain name that was 
transferred into Fabulous being disputed. After providing details from the new 
Registrant to the losing Registrar they decided no longer to pursue the matter. 
This seemed to be a clear case of seller remorse and I would hate to be in a 
situation where we would have to return the domain name to the original 
registrant as they had changed their mind.

Our main issue with the policy as it stands is that it does not require any due 
process.  There is no onus upon the original registrant to prove that they did 
not authorise the transaction. Ultimately it would appear that it will be up to 
the transferee of the domain name to dispute an ETRP, but the policy does not 
currently contain any detail on this point, which is fundamental to the success 
or failure of the policy.  The production of a signed Domain Name Sale 
Agreement, or evidence of payment of a purchase price into the original 
registrant's bank account should be sufficient to dispute an ETRP.

The policy also provides that a registrar may block ETRP use in cases of 
repeated hijack claims, abuse of the procedure or in suspected cases of reverse 
hijacking.  This needs to be fleshed out.  What level of proof would be 
required before a registrar could make a decision to block an ETRP?  Would the 
indemnity referred to in clause 3.4.3 extend to situations where the registrar 
makes a decision to block?

Very important elements of the policy still need to be fleshed out. (ie: There 
are too many unknowns)

Thanks,


Peter Stevenson 
Operations Manager
Telephone +61 7 3007 0070 
Facsimile +61 7 3007 0075
Email Peter.Stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.Fabulous.com

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this e-mail 
in any way. Dark Blue Sea does not guarantee the integrity of any e-mails or 
attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may 
not reflect the views or opinions of Dark Blue Sea. Dark Blue Sea does not 
warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other defects. You assume 
all liability for any loss, damage or other consequences, which may arise from 
opening or using the attachments.






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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy