Request for Input on Transfer Policy - To retain or eliminate a transfer lock

[Ken Herman]

Hello Fellow NCSG Members:

 

I would like to thank members for responding to my request for input last
week regarding the elimination of a transfer restriction. I shared the ideas
presented in that message with the Working Group.

 

Current status:

*	The discussion regarding a transfer restriction (a preferred term
rather than a transfer "Lock") after an inter-registrar transfer evolved to
a position whereby a transfer restriction could be lifted only under some
very specific circumstances and with specific conditions. 
*	The the circumstances can vary, and enumerating them would serve no
useful purpose, the proposed conditions were very specific, and included
ensuring that there was a specific request from the RNH and that request,
along with its rationale and the actions taken by the Registrar, are to be
documented as a matter of policy; i.e. those conditions could be audited for
compliance. 

 

Bottom line: I believe the WG has moved adequately towards a resolution
regarding the lifting of the transfer restriction in a way that addresses
the concerns I expressed previously. It retains a requirement for the
restriction, which is something that did not exist in the original policy
(it was optional for the Registrar) while allowing Registered Name Holders
and Registrars to work together on situations that may facilitate lifting
the restriction, while requiring registrars to fully document the process
with requirements for record retention.

 

I think we can accept this approach, but of course I welcome any additional
thoughts.

 

Thanks.

 

Ken

 

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Ken Herman
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 2:28 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Request for Input on Transfer Policy - To retain or eliminate a
transfer lock

 

Hello Fellow NCSG Members:

 

I request your input regarding an issue under discussed by the Transfer
Policy Review Working Group (TPRWG).

 

The issue concerns whether to allow for the transfer of a domain to a
different registrar in fewer than 30 days after an initial transfer. 

 

My recommended NCSG position: Under no circumstances should a registrar
allow for a transfer in fewer than 30 days.

 

Please review the points below and let me know if you agree with my position
or prefer for me to present some other position. 

 

Certainly, let me know if you have any questions.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

Ken

 

Major points regarding the issue include:

1.	Current policy imposes a 60-day restriction on any inter-registrar
transfers after a transfer. In other words, if I move my registered domain
name to a new registrar, I could not move my domain name again for 60 days.
No exceptions (at least that I am aware of). My understanding is that this
is a measure to protect against domain name theft.
2.	In previous discussions, the working group recommended changing the
lock to 30 days and would require all registries to adhere to this
timeframe. The proposed preliminary recommendation reads as follows:

GROUP 1(a) Rec 17(a): The Registrar MUST restrict the Registered Name Holder
(RNH) from transferring a domain name to a new Registrar within 30 days /
720 hours of the completion of an inter-Registrar transfer. To the extent
that a Registry and/or Registrar has an existing policy and/or practice of
restricting the RNH from transferring a domain name to a new Registrar for a
different period of time following an inter-Registrar transfer, all policies
and practices MUST be updated to be consistent with this new requirement.
3.	This preliminary recommendation has been reopened in light of
current discussions around the Change of Registrant Data policies.
4.	The proposed revision would allow a registrar to initiate a transfer
in fewer than 30 days under certain circumstances. The circumstances
proposed include cases where the registrant has an established relationship
with the registrar. 
5.	Some registrants have a problem with the lock, as indicated in the
Charter for the WG, which notes in paragraph d4 that "Survey responses and
data provided by ICANN's Global Support Center indicate that registrants do
not understand the 60-day lock and express frustration when it prevents them
from completing an inter-registrar transfer."
6.	Some registrars have explained that in a small number of cases the
30-day lock imposes a business hardship, and this is mentioned in the
charter in paragraph d7, "In its survey response, the Registrar Stakeholder
Group indicated that the 60-day lock hinders corporate acquisitions,
consolidations, and divestitures of large lists of domains to new legal
entities".
7.	Some registrars even suggest that having any lock after a transfer
only offers limited protection from domain theft (which is the main reason
for imposing a lock in the first place). Some registrars report many
complaints about having a lock.
8.	Some stakeholder groups express in the WG meetings discomfort with
any reason to remove the lock, and feel the lock remains an important
security control.. 
9.	In my opinion, evidence of the impact of a lock for reducing domain
theft is slim. As noted, my understanding is that the lock was initially
included in the policy since moving domains quickly across many registrars
was an indication of potential domain theft and locking the domain for a
period of time allowed for registrants to recover these domains.
10.	Given that:

a.	Evidence of the impact of the lock is inconclusive, and
b.	Professional domain managers have for many years coped with having
the lock, and
c.	Providing the ability of registrars to undo a lock enables a
registrar to manipulate, and potentially undermine, the trust of
registrants, and
d.	Reducing the lock to 30 days provides a reasonable compromise.

 

My suggestion is for NCSG to take the position to retain the current
language of recommendation 17(a); i.e. to maintain the 30-day lock. I
further suggest that the working group call on ICANN to more intensively
study the impact of having a transfer lock, both of the 

While I would need to confirm, I believe ALAC and the Business Constituency
have a similar position.

 

References: all documents (Charter, preliminary reports, etc) can be found
here: https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240427/5ef1a2db/attachment.htm>