Transfer policy - Update and seeking comments

[Glenn Ricart]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20220329/681bc133/attachment.htm>