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

[Kathy Kleiman]

Agreed, Ken, and thank you for all of your work on this issue!

Sorry if I missed something, but have all timeframes been removed (from 
60 to 0)?  I understand it has been a 60 day lock, and you/NCSG wanted a 
30 day lock (which made sense to me). What is the minimum time now?

Best, Kathy

On 4/27/2024 11:39 AM, Ken Herman wrote:
>
> 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:*
>      1. *Evidence of the impact of the lock is inconclusive, and*
>      2. *Professional domain managers have for many years coped with
>         having the lock, and*
>      3. *Providing the ability of registrars to undo a lock enables a
>         registrar to manipulate, and potentially undermine, the trust
>         of registrants, and*
>      4. *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*
>
> **
>
-- 
Kathy Kleiman
Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240429/7fc264d2/attachment.htm>