ICANN’s Transfer Policy, which was formerly referred to as the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), is an ICANN consensus policy that came into effect on 12 November 2004. It governs the procedure and requirements for registrants to transfer their domain names from one registrar to another. ICANN states that the goal of the Transfer Policy is “to provide for enhanced domain name portability, resulting in greater consumer and business choice, and enabling registrants to select the registrar that offers the best services and price for their needs.”
The Report notes that the Transfer Policy has been the subject of previous policy development work, notably when “sweeping and significant changes to various data privacy laws affected the then current requirements related to gTLD registration data, including portions of the Transfer Policy. Accordingly, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, which established temporary requirements that allowed Contracted Parties to comply with ICANN contracts and consensus policies.” The Temporary Specification sought to ensure that the requirement for registrars to maintain “accurate, reliable, and uniform Registration Data based on legitimate interests” was not “outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data subjects, consistent with GDPR.”
Additionally, ICANN notes that the most recent working group that reviewed the Transfer Policy recommended a comprehensive review of the policy-based changes to assess their efficacy and impact. With that in mind, the Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO Council) initiated the current two-phase policy development process (PDP) to review the Transfer Policy in February 2021, which has resulted in the release of this Report.
The Report contains a number of preliminary recommendations on questions ranging from whether the “AuthInfo Code” should be renamed a “Transfer Authorization Code” (TAC) and whether such Code should be held by the Registry rather than by registrars, how long the TAC should be valid and whether a mechanism for the provision of bulk TACs could be envisaged. Other parts of the Report seek to eliminate terminology inconsistencies, with recommendations for terms such as “Whois” to be replaced with “Registration Data” and “Administrative Contact” with “Registered Name Holder”, in recognition of the fact that Administrative Contact data is no longer collected by registrars.
The subject of Denying (NACKing) transfers was also shifted from Phase 2 to Phase 1(a) pursuant to a Project Change Request in order to “ensure that the working group could examine all elements of the security model for domain name transfers in a holistic manner as part of its Phase 1 deliberations.” The report specifically looks at the question of whether there should be more flexibility for, or a change to the length of, the 60-day post-registration lock period. Ultimately, the working group recommends a 30-day Registry lock period, which it feels is sufficient in order to identify problems such as fraud or credit card abuse and to allow the filing of a UDRP whilst still remaining reasonable, but it asserts that this should be applied consistently across the industry.
The Report also sets out recommendations with regard to the reasons registrars MAY, MUST, MAY NOT and MUST NOT deny transfer requests and also recommends that the language governing the locking of a domain name pursuant to the filing of a UDRP complaint be strengthened in order to state:
The Registrar of Record MUST deny a transfer request in the following circumstances:
• Pending UDRP proceeding that the Registrar has been notified of by the Provider in accordance with the UDRP Rules.
This Public Comment proceeding, which opened for submissions on 21 June and closes on 2 August 2022, is presented in the form of a series of questions seeking input in relation to the specific recommendations in the Report. The working group will review the Public Comment submissions received on this Initial Report and consider whether any changes need to be made to its Phase 1(a) recommendations as well as moving to complete Phase 1(b) of its work, which will include a Phase 1(b) Initial Report followed by another public comment period on the same. All Phase 1 recommendations will be presented in a single Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO Council.
In order to participate in the Public Comment proceeding please visit this website.
Authored by Anchovy News Team.
