Transfer policy - Update and seeking comments

Thu Apr 14 20:59:35 EEST 2022

Hi Bruna

I think the small team wants to wrap up their work pretty quickly but we
should invite Roger the chair of the working group to discuss the work.
Also we need to discuss DNS abuse with the CPH during Hague meeting.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 7:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20220414/6c559b62/attachment.htm>