Transfer policy - Update and seeking comments

Thu Apr 14 18:01:15 EEST 2022

Would Owen be willing to join the NCSG membership meeting at ICANN 74 so we
can have a small discussion on that ?! What do you think ?

Best,
B

On Fri 15. Apr 2022 at 00:35, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Farzaneh,
>
> Thanks for the update.
> Yes this language seems better while not bullet-proof and I assume abuse
> defined by ICANN policy implies going through PDP or having something
> existing already. Maybe reference to what exists would be helpful. I take
> the context of current discussion of DNS abuse and what it means later. For
> registrars own policy, they can set their own ToS of course.
> Yes any engagement with registrars and discussion with Owen is welcome.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 03:25 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Glenn and Rafik, thank you so much for your responses.
>>
>> I joined the small team that is focussing on this wording and told them
>> we think the reasons have to be listed. They resisted it and came up with
>> this language:
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    3.x The Registrar of Record MAY deny a transfer request only in the
>>    following specific instances:
>>    -
>>
>>       3.7.1 Evidence of fraud [or, abuse as defined by the registrar or
>>       ICANN policy] [, or willful/malicious violation of the registration
>>       agreement].
>>       -
>>
>>          Owen’s suggestion: Evidence of fraud or violation of the
>>          registration agreement or ICANN policy.
>>
>> So effectively they got rid of "abuse" and added registration agreement
>> or ICANN policy. I am uncomfortable with "fraud" still being there but I
>> prefer Owen's suggestion. Owen mentioned that he would be willing to talk
>> to those interested to explain further.  (Owen is a rep from registrars
>> stakeholder group)
>>
>> As to the transfer fee, apparently there are some registrars that charge
>> some fee but transfer should not be blocked for that reason so we will look
>> after that.
>>
>> There was a helpful feedback about this on the list:
>>
>>
>> *"9. My registrar is charging me a fee to transfer to a new registrar. Is
>> this allowed?*
>> *Yes. Registrars are allowed to set their own prices for this service so
>> some may choose to charge a fee. However, a transfer cannot be denied due
>> to non-payment of this transfer fee. There are other reasons your registrar
>> can deny transfer request.*
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-holder-faqs-2017-10-10-en
>>
>> I do not think many registrars do this, and it is likely generally when
>> tied to other services (e.g. hosting or as part of brand protection). I
>> recall at least one case when I was at ICANN Compliance where Compliance
>> required the registrar to transfer the domain name even though the transfer
>> out fee was not paid (it even resulted in a notice of breach)."
>>
>>
>> I think we should still observe this issue as the group progresses and
>> try and provide some certainty around the issue.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:31 PM Glenn Ricart <gricart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would think that if a registrar is seeing "abuse," they'd be happy to
>>> get rid of the name and the trouble it's causing.
>>> So, "abuse" wouldn't seem to be a valid reason; if it is a valid reason,
>>> the valid reason needs a better name than "abuse."
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:52 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear NCSG,
>>>>
>>>> I along with Wisdom are your reps on  the Transfer policy working
>>>> group. A lot of operational matters (which I shared with you some time ago)
>>>> but now two distinct topics are being discussed that I want to seek your
>>>> advice on:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Hefty transfer fee: apparently some domain name registrants have
>>>> faced hefty transfer fees when trying to transfer. How should we solve this
>>>> problem? It doesn't look like there is a policy for fee control I don't
>>>> even think that is possible in this group, but do you think there has to be
>>>> a clause somewhere that mentions that transfer fee should ideally not exist
>>>> or be waived or the registrant should be told about the transfer fee before
>>>> they register? How should we go about this? This causes some competition
>>>> issues as well since registrars can discourage people from transferring by
>>>> exerting hefty fees.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Adding abuse: one of the reasons to deny transfer is "fraud". It is
>>>> not very clear what is meant by that but now ICANN org suggested that there
>>>> should be some addition to fraud because registrars sometimes deny transfer
>>>> because of abuse too. Abuse is a loaded term and includes many things. Most
>>>> registries and registrars are in favor of adding abuse as a ground to deny
>>>> transfer. we don't agree because it is too loaded. We mentioned perhaps you
>>>> can say because of violation of registration agreement but some argue that
>>>> violation of registration agreement includes too many items some that are
>>>> not even in ICANN mission and it is too broad. I think that is a good
>>>> argument but now I don't have a solution or an alternative to abuse. What
>>>> do you think?
>>>>
>>>> 3. Identification v Ownership: this comes up in many ICANN policy
>>>> discussions. People think in order to verify ownership they have to
>>>> "identify" the domain name registrant. I am sceptical and find it even a
>>>> dangerous concept. I think there might be ways to verify ownership without
>>>> identification. Or at least not bring the "identification" issues to ICANN.
>>>> This is what I have been paying attention to always making sure that we
>>>> don't have "identification" where we don't need it. If you have any
>>>> comments on that please let me know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I can't attend the meetings regularly but I will send updates as
>>>> much as I can when it comes to important decisions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>> --

*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>

Visiting Researcher (Gastwissenschaftlerin) | Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
für Sozialforschung (WZB) <https://wzb.eu/en>

Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>

Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
bruna.martinsantos
*bruna.martinsdossantos at wzb.eu <bruna.martinsdossantos at wzb.eu>* and
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20220414/e261dbc8/attachment.htm>