COMMENT - Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C

["Jonathan Tenenbaum" <jonathan.tenenbaum@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

 

Please see the attached for my Comment on the Proposed Implementation of
GNSO PDP Recommendations on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C,
on behalf of both NameJet, LLC and myself as a member of the IRTP-C Working
Group. I have also pasted a copy of the comment below for easier reference
and review. Thank you.

 

Best,

 

-Jonathan Tenenbaum

 

 


Comment on Proposed Changes to Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy


 


As a member of the IRTP-Part C Working Group (the "Working Group") and as
General Manager of NameJet, LLC ("NameJet"), a leading domain name
aftermarket platform, I write to comment on ICANN's proposed changes to the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy ("IRTP" and/or the "Policy"). 


 

First, as a member of the IRTP-Part C Working Group (the "Working Group"), I
personally participated in discussions aimed to develop policy that would
facilitate the ease of domain name transfers between registrants, while at
the same time helping to prevent domain name hijacking and unauthorized
transfers.  As outlined in the Final Report of the Working Group (the
"Report" as found online at
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf), the
Working Group was charged with tackling three issues, namely: (i)
investigating how the "change of control" or "change of registrant" function
is currently achieved, and if there are any applicable models in the
country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD
space, while also identifying any associated security concerns; (ii) whether
provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorizations (FOAs) should be
implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out; and (iii) whether the process
could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for
registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

 

Following several months of discussion and deliberation, the Working Group
recommended the adoption of change of registrant consensus policy, which
outlines the rules and requirements for a change of registrant of a domain
name registration.  Per this recommendation, both the "Prior Registrant" and
the "New Registrant" need to authorize the change of registrant, whereby
such authorization could also be provided by the Prior Registrant in the
form of pre-approval or via a proxy.  In light of the foregoing, the Policy
changes that are now being proposed in the current Policy draft DO NOT
appear to be consistent with the final recommendations of the Working Group.
Among other items, the Working Group made it clear that pre-approval and/or
approval by proxy on the part of the prior registrant was acceptable,
provided such pre-approvals are secured using a generally accepted method of
authentication. However, this stipulation is noticeably absent from the
proposed Policy update, and this would conflict with the recommendations and
intent of the Working Group.  In addition, per the Report, a change of
registrant can be requested by the registrant or an authorized
representative of the registrant - another aspect absent from the current
Policy draft.  As such, pre-approval or proxy authorization should be
incorporated into and allowable under any new version of the Policy.

 

Moreover, while the Working Group's recommendation is that both Registrants
are to authorize a change of registrant, the language in the Policy draft
related to the transmission of Change of Registrant Credentials appears
inconsistent. Notably, the language in the revised Policy regarding the
obtaining of requisite confirmation requires the prior registrant to
transmit the credential to the new registrant. However, Step 1 of the change
of registrant process as outlined in the Report provides that either
registrant may transmit the credential to the other.  Also, the proposed
Policy appears to further add additional steps and layers to the process
that were not recommended or otherwise contemplated by the Working Group,
and as such may have negative unintended consequences on various
stakeholders, such as registries, registrars and registrants. For example,
the proposed Policy incorporates another confirmation/approval step beyond
the transmission of the Credentials (See Part II, Section 3.2(b)(i)), which
was not recommended by the Working Group, and may add unnecessary
restrictions and complexity to the process.  Furthermore, Section 2.2 of
Part II of the proposed Policy stipulates that a Registrar "must" deny a
change of registrant request under certain circumstances, whereby such a
stipulation was not recommended by the Working Group with respect to the
outlined circumstances. 

 

Based on these inconsistencies and lack of contemplation on the part of the
Working Group as to how this particular language may impact various
stakeholders, we would ask that ICANN review the implementation of the
Working Group's recommendations and revise the Policy and implementation
process accordingly. It should also be noted that because of the variety of
business models present in the domain name space and wide array of customer
situations that arise on a regular basis, registrars must have the
flexibility to implement the general requirements of any new Policy in a way
that is not overly restrictive or damaging to their business. Therefore the
new Policy and the implementation thereof should not include any
unnecessarily specific requirements that are either obstructive or otherwise
inconsistent with the Report and intent of the Working Group.  

 

Second, in my role as NameJet's General Manager, I help service thousands of
customers that wish to sell and/or purchase good and valuable domain names
in the domain name aftermarket.  The proposed changes to the current Policy
would overly restrict the efficient sale and transfer of domain names
between registrants thereby severely hampering the established and thriving
market for good and valuable domain names.  Further, we would oppose the
notion that a Prior Registrant must transmit a Change of Registrant
Credential to a New Registrant when that Prior Registrant has allowed the
registration to expire and has no further rights regarding the domain name.
To that end, it should be noted that the Working Group did not contemplate
or recommend the implementation of a transfer approval process for the
transfer of expired domain names to which prior registrants have no further
rights.  

 

In light of the foregoing, I urge ICANN to review and revise the proposed
Policy language to better synchronize with the recommendations and intent of
the Working Group. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this
important policy development. 

 

Sincerely, 


JONATHAN TENENBAUM

May 15, 2015

 

 

 

Jonathan Tenenbaum | GM

NameJet, LLC

12808 Gran Bay Parkway West

Jacksonville, FL 32258

Office: 904-251-6291

Mobile: 570-466-5968

Email:  <mailto:JT@xxxxxxxxxxx> JT@xxxxxxxxxxx

 <http://www.namejet.com/> www.namejet.com

Attachment: Comment on Proposed IRTP Update - May 15 2015.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document