IRTP Part B domain lock status

["Pieter van Ieperen" <pieter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear ICANN members and others,


In chapter 3 of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) there should
be three sentences like in chapter 5:

"The Registrar of Record must unlock the domain name within five (5)
calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request if the
Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to
manage the lock status himself."

"The Registrar of Record must not employ any mechanism for complying
with a Registered Name Holder's request to unlock the domain name that
is more restrictive than the mechanisms used for changing any aspect of
the Registered Name Holder's contact or name server information."

"The Registrar of Record must not refuse to unlock the domain name
solely because there is a dispute between the Registered Name Holder and
the Registrar over payment."


An additional sentence in IRTP chapter 3 to address WIPO concerns:

"The Registrar of Record may be obligated to keep the domain name locked
in case of court proceedings, arbitration proceedings or ICANN dispute
resolution policy administrative proceedings."

This sentence says "may be obligated to" and not "must" because the IRTP
is not the place to mandate domain locks. See the ICANN dispute
resolution policies for lock mandates (unclearly written chapter 8 of
UDRP).


Further it should be stated in IRTP chapter 3 that the lock status in
the registry must be the same as the lock status at the registrar, and
that the lock status must be visible in the public whois (no hidden
lock).


In general ICANN should be concerned that domain names (contact-, dns-,
lock- and epp-auth-data) are not controlled by their registrants, but by
invisible account holders (resellers) administering domains for many
registrants. This way registrant data and thus transfer authorization
becomes pretty meaningless.


Kind regards to all,


Pieter van Ieperen
The Netherlands