Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt secondary market

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt secondary 
market

Since the WG has discussed in today's conference call removing my prior 
comment, 
which quoted from DomainState/DNForum (look up "fair use"!), I'm resending the 
comments which were entirely my own (thus no "copyright" issues whatsoever). 
Not 
as beautifully formatted as before, but you can blame the folks who wanted to 
fully censor the prior submission for that.

The proposed ETRP policy create a huge loophole, as I pointed out in the 
working 
group mailing list while I was a member. If workgroup members can't see the 
obvious, I can't help them any longer. Also the "ad hoc" locks that are 
violation of existing transfers policy need to be eliminated. Registrars should 
be proactive about security, rather than misusing the locks in order to prevent 
legitimate registrars from transferring to the registrar of their choice (which 
might be a far more secure registrar than the "losing" registrar). The desire 
for a new registrant to change to their own preferred registrar immediately 
should not be blocked by losing registrars that wish to hold a domain name 
hostage.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/


ICANN, in typical fashion, released an important policy report today (a 
Saturday 
during the US Memorial holiday long weekend) that folks might not notice until 
it's too late. It's regarding the work from the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy 
Working Group, and the report is at:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcement...29may10-en.htm
What's especially of concern is the proposed "Expedited Transfer Reversal 
Policy" (ETRP, see Annex C of the PDF, page 49) which would permit the 
registrant at the "losing" registrar to undo a transfer for up to 6 months 
after 
a transfer. There is currently no mechanism to dispute the proposed ETRP.
This proposal would create great uncertainty in the secondary market for domain 
names, as it means a "transfer" isn't considered final for up to 6 months after 
a purchase, assuming one changes registrars during a transaction, which is 
almost always the case.
Here's the typical pattern of a purchase. Example.com is registered at RegA, 
and 
you want to buy the domain name, but transfer to RegB during the transaction 
(RegB might be your "home" registrar (Tucows for me), or might be Moniker who 
does escrows, etc.). At present, the seller would get paid immediately after 
the 
domain name transfers from RegA to RegB, and you'd have control of the domain 
name at your preferred registrar (RegB). If there was a dispute, it would go to 
court, etc., and RegB would await a court ruling. The good faith buyer is 
definitely protected.
Under ETRP, though, it would be a nightmare. How would the buyer know for sure 
that he/she has control and ownership of the domain name, when the seller could 
simply undo the transfer for up to 6 months??!!?? The seller would end up with 
both the cash AND the domain name, and the domain name would be at RegA (a 
registrar you don't want the domain name to be at). You as the buyer would then 
need to take the seller to court, and the relevant jurisdiction would no longer 
even be that of RegB (your preferred registrar), but would be that of RegA.
A Moniker or other company that uses their own registrar to ensure a secure 
transfer would not be able to help at all, because they are "RegB." All the 
power reverts to RegA (the original "losing" registrar). Not only that, the 
registrant at RegA indemnifies RegA itself, so RegA doesn't even care if they 
are "stealing" back a legitimately purchased domain.
One approach to try to "solve" this problem, as a legitimate buyer, would be to 
transfer the domain name at RegA first. So, for example, if the domain name is 
at GoDaddy or NSI, you would do an internal change of registrant transfer, 
keeping the name at that registrar. However, then you are stuck for 60 days, as 
most of these registrars have been trying to hold the domain name hostage for 
that amount of time, to get extra renewals, etc. So, for 60 days you are in 
limbo at a registrar that you don't like, and one that is probably not in the 
legal jurisdiction you want to be in (e.g. GoDaddy = Arizona jurisdiction, 
which 
would not be good). During that 60 day period, do you really have full control 
of the domain name? I would say "No", because you (as the legitimate buyer) 
would face the possibility of the transfer being undone by a registrar that you 
don't want to be at.
Anyhow, this is a very messed up proposal. If you look at DailyChanges.com or 
RegistrarStats.com, you'd quickly see that transfers make up roughly the same 
number of daily transactions as new registrations. So, it's very important that 
any changes that would have such a major impact on the secondary market for 
domain names be well thought out.
If one looks at the composition of those who were on the workgroup:
https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi
(see the bottom) it appears most do not even understand the grave impact such 
changes would have on the secondary market (which is probably greater in 
economic value than the primary market). I'm all for fighting domain hijacking, 
but this "solution" is far worse than the problem it is trying to solve. There 
needs to be a secure and predictable procedure for the irrevocable transfer of 
a 
domain name to a legitimate buyer, yet ICANN is now making the process less 
predictable and more risky for the buyer. The legitimate buyer would face at 
least 60 days (and up to 6 months) of risk without due process if the proposal 
is accepted.
What's even more appalling is that ICANN didn't even open up a comment period 
yet, so that folks could get their opinions on the record! The comment period 
won't begin until July 5th, and will last only 20 days. This is silly, given 
that it costs $0 to open up the comment period now.
In the meantime, I encourage folks to contact their registrars to make sure 
that 
your voices are heard, and perhaps blog about the issue if you have a blog, etc.

BTW, even if you became your own registrar, this policy change would still 
affect you as a buyer (as the registrant at the losing "old" registrar has all 
the power, and the transfer is done by the registry operator, even over the 
objections of the new registrar).
It also means people moving domains from less secure to more secure registrars 
are also not protected!
The right "solution" to the problem of domain hijackings, by the way, is to 
raise the level of security at all registrars, e.g. two-factor authentication, 
executive lock, Verified WHOIS, having a WHOIS history archived at the registry 
level (so one can do a proper "title search"), etc. Registrars should "know 
their customers", and refuse the transfer if there's any doubt. Once the 
transfer has taken place, it should become irrevocable. VeriSign has 2 services 
for additional locks, see:
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/
(#2009005 and #2009004) albeit they should have been offered on a competitive 
basis, instead of being another monopoly service that is not price regulated.
Instead, this proposed policy excuses the "weak" registrars, and punishes the 
strong registrars. It will actually incentivize registrars to lower security, 
instead of improving it, because "Hey, you can always challenge the outgoing 
transfer later." This perverts the incentives.
The onus should be on the current registrant (a future seller) to move their 
domains to a secure registrar -- there are enough options out there that if 
your 
name isn't already at one, it's your own fault for not moving it there by now.

Note this has a grave impact on sellers, too, not just buyers. Suppose you are 
the seller, and I'm the buyer. You want to sell me Example.com.
Under this proposed policy, the domain name can't be properly 
delivered/transferred to me without maintaining a huge liability, i.e. the 
seller maintaining the option to "undo" the transfer within 6 months. That 
liability tarnishes the domain name, it makes it less desirable, because I as a 
buyer can't gain clear title to the domain name through an irrevocable 
transfer. 
This means if I want to buy the domain name, I'm going to offer you less money.
As a seller, you can argue until you're blue in the face that you'll never undo 
the transfer, but as long as that policy becomes in place, the risk exists that 
you will undo it. That risk can be represented by legal costs in terms of 
defending that domain transfer (of course, by then, the buyer would have lost 
the cash and the domain name, and be on the hook for major legal costs if the 
transfer is undone). That legal cost is going to hit less valuable domain names 
even harder. On a $300,000 domain, I might factor in potentially $25,000 or 
$50,000 or $100,000 in legal costs. On a $100 domain, or a $5,000 domain name? 
The legal costs alone to defend the transfer start to become far in excess of 
what the domain name is worth. So, the rational legitimate buyer will just walk 
away, and not bother to buy the domain at all.
This also affects big companies. For example, routinely big firms do stealth 
acquisitions through companies like Marksmen, Sedo, Moniker, and others to 
acquire good domains (e.g. Microsoft acquiring office.com, kin.com or 
docs.com). 
Now, if the seller realizes after the fact they've just sold a domain name that 
ends up at Microsoft for $50,000, instead of $1 million, they'll have the 
opportunity to renege on the deal and undo the transfer. Of course, then 
Microsoft/Marksmen/Sedo/Moniker would have to sue to defend the transfer. Those 
legal costs to sue will always have to be factored in as a buyer. What if the 
buyer has the domain name at a Chinese or Indian registrar (which is where it 
will end up with if the "undo" happens)? Good luck finding a Chinese or Indian 
lawyer, if you're in Canada, USA, or Europe.
This is why there's no "undo" for real estate transactions....i.e. there's a 
clear way to transfer title irrevocably. Heck, even in the shipping industry, 
there's a notion of "FOB" (Free On Board)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOB_(shipping)
which delineates exactly where the liability starts and ends for the 
delivery/transfer/shipping of goods. When I'm a domain buyer, I want to be able 
to say "You get paid when the domain name is delivered to me at Tucows. 
Period." 
Under this proposal, there'd be a 6 month period where the seller can't make 
that clear delivery/transfer. Or alternatively, they can deliver, but only at a 
registrar I don't want to be at (e.g. internal transfer at NSI/GoDaddy, etc.). 
In either scenario, you're not making the delivery I want, and so I'm going to 
have to pay you less for the essentially "damaged" goods (i.e. damaged in the 
sense that they carry a huge potential liability with them, until the title 
passes irrevocably).

It also obviously has a huge impact on escrow companies (e.g. Moniker.com, 
Escrow.com, Sedo) in addition to the "stealth" acquisition firms, and other 
brokers/middlemen, as there's a huge ongoing liability if the transfer cannot 
be 
done in an irrevocable manner.


Under that scenario, it would be Sedo that would need to initiate the transfer 
reversal. However, suppose the name was at GoDaddy, and not Moniker. The 
registrant changes to Sedo, however GoDaddy won't let it change to you for 60 
days. Then, when they change it to you, you won't be able to transfer to eNom 
for another 60 days. All during that 120 days, the old registrant might go to 
GoDaddy to challenge the transfer, using GoDaddy's procedures, or courts in a 
jurisdiction you don't want (Arizona, etc.).
This is all about lack of registrar due diligence, wanting to cut corners. Take 
a look at page 51 of the PDF. It has the point:
3.4.2 Documentation that the PTRa has verified the identity of the pre-transfer 
Registrant by including information on the Registrant Title.
Well, hello there! If the losing registrar could verify the identity of the 
registrant, why didn't they do so before the transfer??!!! It shocks the 
conscience when the "answer" is staring people right in the face. The reason 
why 
they don't do is because they think it'll cost too much money, and they want to 
save a few nickels on their $3/yr margins. As a legitimate buyer, I do due 
diligence before a transfer. Why doesn't the losing registrar do this, before 
they allow a critical change such as an outgoing transfer or a change of 
registrant??
A full-service registrar will offer executive lock, etc., and will offer that 
higher security. If you're at a crappy registrar, it's your choice to have 
picked lower security. Then, to be compelled to stay 60 days at that crappy 
registrar if you're doing a registrant change there? No thanks. But then the 
alternative of having the old registrant be able to undo a transfer for up to 6 
months if you do a direct transfer at the new registrar (i.e. changing 
registrant while doing the transfer)? That's even worse.


After 10 hours of reading, I've digested all of the workgroup's emails and 
teleconferences (weekly meetings for a year). I'm not very impressed that they 
missed so much, or sensed that there were problems but couldn't enunciate what 
should be very obvious to anyone with experience in the industry. They'll use 
the old excuse that "they're just volunteers", but the community really 
deserves 
better when they're proposing huge changes without fully considering the 
implications (both legal and economic).
Anyhow, I've applied to join the workgroup, and will keep folks abreast of when 
they'll have an opportunity to input. If anyone else wants to join, you'd need 
to email glen@xxxxxxxxx (who handles ICANN GNSO mailing lists, etc.), and also 
catch up on the work they've done to date.

Trellian: Thanks for your input. Consider this, though:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00285.html
Quote:
In short, I think we should consider going forward with an alternate version 
that doesn't include a means to dispute the ETRP. I say this with full 
acknowledgment to the problems that Michael, Kevin, Barbara and others have 
identified, and the efforts of the Working Group to address them. But the "ETRP 
Dispute" contains some fundamental flaws that could derail our entire proposal.
That's from James Bladel of GoDaddy (hi James!), who has been pushing this 
process (GoDaddy has 2 members in the workgroup). This comment was recent, i.e. 
May 21, 2010.
I managed to join the workgroup, see:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00301.html
However as you can see in the posts at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/
they've not been very forthcoming. Essentially, they want to take a holiday 
between now and Brussels, and then open up comments only for 20 days in July, 
when most people are on holidays. Plus, ICANN is literally swamping the public 
now with many simultaneous comment periods, i.e. RAA amendments, new TLDs, etc. 
It's obvious they simply want to railroad their pet ideas through, with minimum 
notice or opportunity for the public to make real changes.
As James Bladel of GoDaddy said on April 27 (hi James!):
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/trans...27apr10-en.pdf
Quote:
Good points Mikey and Marika. I would agree with one qualifier is that I think 
that when initial reports are released they do tend to take on a certain degree 
of inertia. And while they do change between the initial and the final I think 
that they probably are 80% of the recommendations are contained in one 
(unintelligible) other. (page 5)
So, while they call this an "Initial Report", for all intents and purposes they 
feel their work is mostly done (despite the serious defects that everyone I've 
consulted sees immediately).

The ITRP just had a conference call, and I was basically ganged up on for 
pointing out all the flaws in the proposed ETRP (Expedited Transfer Reverse 
Policy).
How's your business going to be affected when folks can simply undo a 
legitimate 
transfer "at will", without due process, within 6 months? How will an escrow 
work if the prior owner can simply claim "hijacking" and undo a transfer, when 
it's simply a case of seller's remorse?
I'm totally appalled at how they want to create a huge loophole in policy, that 
will have collateral damage which is much bigger than the "problem" they're 
trying to solve. A transcript of what went down should be available later at: 
http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12502

BTW, I came up with a possible solution, namely an "Irrevocable Transfer 
Procedure." That would give people a choice, see:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00334.html

The comment period is now open:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcement...05jul10-en.htm
I'll likely have my comments in sometime next week.

Hey folks,
Now things are getting interesting. As you know, we're getting swamped with 
ICANN comment periods right now. But it appears that the members of the 
transfers workgroup are reconsidering extending the public comment period by 
two 
weeks! What a joke. One can see my response at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00415.html
and you can see related discussion at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/
It's all too typical of ICANN politics....folks generally want more time, but 
on 
a specific issue when they feel that the public will oppose a given issue, they 
won't extend deadlines at all, in order to get the fewest possible comments.
The public comment period is currently set to end on July 25, and there are 
many 
other comment periods that need to be dealt with. All the documents are at:
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comme...initial-report
(and as I've previously discussed, the proposed ETRP would have a huge impact 
on 
the secondary market if sellers were able to simply undo a transfer at will 
anytime within 6 months; it would cause havoc due to "seller's remorse", affect 
escrows, and affect overall domain name
valuations by creating uncertainty over true "title" over domains; the current 
proposal lacks any due process whatsoever to prevent "gaming" and "abuse" of 
this clawback procedure)
Anyhow, if you feel as I do that there should be more time, you might want to 
let them know. One can send a comment to the public comment site at:
irtp-b-initial-report@xxxxxxxxx
Or contact members of the workgroup, listed at the bottom of:
http://st.icann.org/irtp-partb
You can see from the results of the Doodle Poll so far, that they're currently 
voting NOT to extend the comment period! Ridiculous!

(from a post I just made on another forum, as a primer to those who've not 
followed the issue in depth)
Let me explain why the ETRP affects everyone in the domain industry, in a 
nutshell. It would allow for "seller's remorse" because domain transfers could 
be undone anytime within 6 months without any due process, and with no built-in 
dispute mechanism at present (unlike the TDRP). It is supposed to be limited to 
domain hijackings, but there aren't any "qualifiers" to it. This despite the 
issues report saying any emergency procedure needed to be "qualified" to 
situations where the magnitude of the harm was great, and tested to ensure that 
there was no opportunity for "gaming", i.e. to allow an attacker to misuse the 
procedure to reverse hijack a name.
So, suppose you are buying a domain name. You have to factor in as a buyer that 
the domain name could be clawed back (causing you legal fees, etc.). That 
lowers 
the value of the domain name, as it's coming with a built-in risk, a built-in 
liability. So, instead of paying $10K for a domain name, you might pay $8K. Or, 
you might not even do the deal at all. You might say "oh, that doesn't affect 
me, we only sell domains. A-ha, but when the buyer is buying from you, you can 
jump and down all day long saying you'll never use the ETRP against 
them.....but 
it's still a risk for the buyer. So, the price you get for a domain name will 
always be lower to a rational buyer. So, uniformly it lowers ALL domain name 
values.
If transfers are currently "irrevocable", but suddenly become undoable, it's 
kind of like what would happen to "money", if everyone suddenly was forced to 
stop using wire transfers (i.e. which are essentially irrevocable), and *had* 
to 
use credit cards for ALL transactions. Markets would be in chaos, because 
there'd be a big risk to deal with in ALL payments (i.e. chargebacks, credit 
risk, counterparty risk).
So, it's just not "sophisticated buyers" or "domainers" who need the 
irrevocability to exist....it's everyone, sellers, holders, developers, etc. 
lest all domain names become devalued and tainted.
Just imagine if the same "undo" rules were in effect in the housing 
market....everyone in the housing market from broker to buyer to seller to 
builder would be affected by the uncertainty. The same would happen to domains, 
due to uncertainty over true title.
Then there's the side-issue of the 60-day lock on registrant change (i.e. the 
"GoDaddy so-called "opt-in") which the report commends as a best-practice! 
(helps that the working group had 2 GoDaddy employees on it, lol) I'm still 
trying to get that killed via:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00387.html
but so far, silence from ICANN.
In the "worst-case" scenario, your transactions (if done through an escrow 
firm) 
would need to have up to a 6-month closing period. Can you live with that??!!??

It also obviously has a huge impact on escrow companies (e.g. Moniker.com, 
Escrow.com, Sedo) in addition to the "stealth" acquisition firms, and other 
brokers/middlemen, as there's a huge ongoing liability if the transfer cannot 
be 
done in an irrevocable manner.

This isn't just "reputational" damage, though, Tekz. It directly affects all 
buyers and sellers monetarily, even if you have no intention of ever using the 
undo. Because of the existence of that ability to undo, your ability to pass 
clear title to the domain name is now impaired. That means your domain name is 
damaged when you're selling it, and damaged when you're buying it. In other 
words, the domain name is worth less whether you are a buyer or a seller.
You live in Hong Kong, and know how the Chinese real estate market is --- 
suppose they created a law that let the seller of a house "undo" the sale 
within 
6 months. What would happen? It would be chaos. No sane buyer is going to want 
to touch a property/asset where the seller could simply undo the transaction at 
whim, unless that "risk" is accounted for. And the only way that the proposal 
is 
allowing people to "account for" that risk is for the buyer to take the seller 
to court (and that jurisdiction will be in the jurisdiction of the original 
registrar, where you intentionally did not want to have the domain name be at). 
That's a bad risk. Unless you're a lawyer, who will love the extra "volume" of 
cases to handle.

Most big sales don't take place using PayPal, they happen through escrow 
services, direct wire transfers, etc. Even small sales, they go through sites 
like Sedo, auctions through Moniker, NameJet, SnapNames, etc. The "30 day 
window" you're talking about refers to payment issues. That's entirely outside 
ICANN policy making and domain names (ideally, folks should be paying using 
some 
irrevocable method like wire transfers through escrow, etc., but that's 
entirely 
irrelevant). This is about undoing a domain transfer.
The workaround you suggest doesn't work at all, and adds even more 
complexity/irrationality to the issue. One wants the transfer to be 
irrevocable/irreversible, except with due process (court, etc.). Transferring 
to 
yet another registrar doesn't stop it from being irreversible at all. There 
needs to be a clear demarcation point as to when title passes to a new 
registrant, period. Not this never-ending "I want to have a do-over, please."
At some point, ICANN has to say "this is outside our policymaking, there are 
other more proper venues to handle the perceived problem" (e.g. courts). This 
is 
one of those times, at least with this ill-advised proposal, which would raise 
new problems far worse than existing ones.
It's not as if these issues are new, by the way. There is a wealth of knowledge 
in other industries (online banking, land registries, even webmail security 
practices) to draw upon, much that were already spoon-fed through past ICANN 
Security reports (that appear to have mostly gone unread or were ignored).

I agree with you, Acro. It's a totally flawed proposal. If they're not going to 
fix it, we need to at least retain the existing system of irrevocable transfers 
for those who *need* it, those who are prepared to make the choice to use it.
The key idea is "irrevocability". i.e. at what point transfers are "final" and 
"undoable"? A simple analogy might be payment systems, comparing wire transfers 
to credit cards / cheques. For a wire transfer, the payment is essentially 
irrevocable. It's considered the safest form of payment, especially for large 
amounts, for the recipient of the funds. When we're doing domain name transfers 
today, they're also irrevocable, like wire transfers.
Now, what they're proposing with the ETRP is akin to compelling everyone to 
switch from using wire transfers, to instead using credit cards or cheques for 
payments. With a credit card, there's a risk of a chargeback for months. With a 
cheque, similarly the funds can take a long time to "clear". In cases of both 
credit cards and cheques, the merchant (i.e. the recipient of the funds) is 
bearing all the risk. For domain transfers to be subject to "chargebacks" or to 
long "cheque clearing periods" (where the funds are "on hold at your bank" 
until 
they clear) is truly a step backwards.
What's hilarious is that registrars *hate* cheques and credit cards, especially 
for large amounts. They'll want folks to pay by wire transfers, to ensure that 
they (as recipients of the funds) are not at risk. So, they implicitly 
understand the concept of irrevocability, and its hypocrisy that some of them 
think switching to a system where that irrevocability is lost is somehow better 
than what we have now. It's not.
Why they can't understand why domain buyers *need* domain transfers to be 
irrevocable is simply unreal. When they eventually post the transcript/audio, 
you'll get an idea of how they tried to silence me. They even actually *muted* 
me several times, as I was trying to make points to counter some of the BS that 
was flying. There was an Adobe Acrobat chatroom that many of us were in at the 
same time, and I was pointing out repeatedly how others were able to jump back 
in the queue and respond (e.g. Rob Hall of Pool/Momentous), but I wasn't given 
the same treatment.
You can understand why Pool would want the ETRP, as they'd routinely have 
valuable domain names *leaving* them (i.e. names caught on drops), and they 
might want to reverse those transactions from time to time. But, the ETRP is 
the 
wrong way to do it. If they want to improve security, they can do the due 
diligence *before* allowing the outgoing transfer (e.g. confirm payment by 
wire, 
or authenticate the transfer by talking to the registrant over the phone, etc.; 
lots of *proactive* security policies can be in place). However, once the name 
leaves them, it should be gone for good, and not be able to be "clawed back."
For that workgroup to pretend that the only kind of fraud is by domain 
hijackers 
is ludicrous. There are lots of bad sellers out there, too, that wouldn't 
hesitate to undo a transfer by crying "wolf" and falsely saying their domain 
was 
stolen, if it meant they could make more money selling it to someone else 
(recall the whole camroulette.com lawsuit), or if they get cold feet / seller's 
remorse (e.g. they find out the real buyer was Microsoft, say for a kin.com or 
a 
docs.com), or like the TrademarkLawyer.com and other names at Sedo where they 
seller simply backed out before completing the sale at auction. There are lots 
of TM holders who engage in reverse domain name hijacking attempts. We 
shouldn't 
permit a new method of reverse domain name hijacking to exist, via a fresh 
loophole. Otherwise, it would create uncertainty over the true "title 
ownership" 
of a domain name......this would hurt all registrants.
Just to be clear, this hurts both domain buyers, and domain sellers. If you're 
a 
domain name seller, you need to convince the buyer that you won't do a ETRP. 
But, how do you do that, when it's ICANN policy? i.e. you can jump and down all 
day saying "I'm a good guy, I'm not going to do it", but when all is said and 
done, as a buyer I have to pay you less, because the risk will always exist 
that 
you as seller will undo the transfer. Thus, I have to factor in the legal costs 
I'll have to spend if you invoke the ETRP, and also the damages I would suffer 
on my website from the time you invoke the ETRP to the time I can recover the 
reverse-hijacked domain through the courts (which might be years).
So, this is not a policy that just hurts buyers. It hurts sellers too. It means 
that all domains that are transferred are "tainted" for 6 months. When a buyer 
is buying a tainted asset, he is forced to pay less. When a seller is selling a 
tainted asset, he/she can't get the same price as he/she would if it was 
untainted.

You've got the Chairman of the working group, Michele Neylon, showing spite 
towards so-called "domainers", thinking that it's only going to negatively 
affect them:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00407.html
"So I'm meant to feel sorry for domainers?" And also suggesting that there's no 
"proof" that people need more time (despite the examples I already provided in 
my post http://twitter .com/mneylon/status/18683355859