Request for Input regarding a transfer policy recommendation

[Yao Amevi A. Sossou]

Hello Ken, this is a great question, how much detail is too much? Here's my
take.
I personaly think that specific conditions are useful because they, on one
hand, having clear conditions makes it easier for everyone (registrars,
registrants, and ICANN’s compliance team) to understand when the 30-day
restriction can be lifted. It reduces confusion and ensures that the policy
is applied consistently. Yes , vague terms like "reasonable request" leave
too much room for interpretation, which can lead to disputes or even abuse
of the system. On the other hand, flexibility is important. We can’t
predict every possible scenario. If the policy is too rigid, it might block
legitimate cases where lifting the restriction makes sense. if we fear that
listing specific conditions will limit the policy to just those cases then
we can address that by framing the list as examples, not a hard limit.

*What I Recommend for 18.3*

   - Keep the examples in the revised text (points i, ii, and v) as they
   are really clear and practical.
   - Combine points iii and iv into one since they’re both about domain
   acquisitions. This way it could make the text shorter and easier to follow.
   - Add a clause to allow flexibility. Something like: “These examples are
   not exhaustive. Other legitimate reasons can be considered, as long as they
   follow ICANN policies and local laws.”

Kind regards,
.............................................................
Yao Amevi A. Sossou

UX/UI| IT Support | Project manager| Human centered Entrepreneurship| SDG
Advocate | Internet Governance | Youth IGF

Email: soyames at gmail.com

Twitter: *https://twitter.com/_amevY2 <https://twitter.com/_amevY2>*

LinkedIn: Yao Amevi A. sossou | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameviy/>

.............................................................

*We need your support for the West African Design Forum*:
https://www.westafricandesignforum.africa/

*Donate today: *https://buy.stripe.com/dR6aIl0ZZg3SfFm8wH

.............................................................

To promote respect for the environment, thank you to only print this email
only when necessary


On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 3:54 AM Ken Herman <ken at kherman.com> wrote:

> Hello NCSG Members
>
>
>
> I seek input on one of the transfer policy recommendations, specifically
> regarding transfer restrictions after an inter-registrar transfer.
>
>
>
> Background Summary:
>
>
>
> In its recommendation 18, the working group recommends requiring
> registrars to impose a transfer restriction of 30 days (expressed as 720
> hours for clarity) following a transfer. In other words, if I transfer a
> domain to a new registrar, then I must wait for 720 hours before any
> further transfer can occur.
>
>
>
> So far so good, and most stakeholder groups seem to accept this
> restriction as an important security mechanism.
>
>
>
> The issue has to do with provisions within the recommendation that allow
> for lifting the restriction under certain conditions.
>
>
>
> The NCSG comments for this recommendation supported the transfer
> restriction as well as the ability to lift it but suggested that there be
> specific conditions under which the restriction can be lifted and out
> comment enumerated those conditions. The original recommendation text
> simply required that the “request includes a reasonable basis for removal
> of the restriction”.
>
>
>
> The NCSG, in its comment, noted that “reasonable request” was too vague to
> be of value (or words to that effect).
>
>
>
> Question:
>
>
>
>    1. Is it useful in a policy document to enumerate specific conditions?
>
>
>
> Some working group members suggest that enumerating conditions will limit
> the policy to those specific conditions, and therefore any additional ones
> may require a policy review. But others disagree, indicating that the
> conditions mentioned in the policy can serve as examples which provide
> guidance to compliance should there be a question as to whether the policy
> was applied correctly.
>
>
>
>    2. Referring to the original and revised text below, my suggestion is
>    to retain, in 18.3, at the very least points (i), (ii) and (v).
>    Furthermore, condense points (iii) and (iv) into one that refers to issues
>    regarding the acquisition of domain names. Do you (a) agree with my
>    suggested proposed text, or (b) is there some other formulation or (c) do
>    you believe the original text to be sufficient?
>
>
>
> The original and revised text is below. The crux of the issue is 18.3
>
>
>
> I look forward to thoughts you may have.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
> INITIAL REPORT LANGUAGE
>
> Recommendation #18 – Transfer Restriction After Inter-Registrar Transfer
>
>
>
> The Registrar MUST restrict the RNH from transferring a domain name to a
> new Registrar within 30 calendar 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. However, the working
> group recognizes that there may be situations where early removal of the
> 30-day restriction described in Recommendation 18 is appropriate.
> Accordingly, the Registrar MAY remove the 30-day inter-Registrar transfer
> restriction early only if all of the below conditions are met:
>
>
>
> 18.1:  The Registrar MUST be able to demonstrate that it received a
> specific request to remove the 30-day restriction from the Registered Name
> Holder;
>
>
>
> 18.2:  The Registrar MUST ensure the request to remove the restriction was
> requested by the Registered Name Holder;
>
>
>
> 18.3: The specific request includes a reasonable basis for removal of the
> restriction; and
>
>
>
> 18.4:  The Registrar MUST maintain a record demonstrating the request to
> remove the restriction (regardless of outcome) for a period of no fewer
> than fifteen (15) months following the end of the Registrar’s sponsorship
> of the registration.
>
>
>
>
>
> Revised Recommendation 18:
>
> The Registrar MUST restrict the RNH from transferring a domain name to a
> new Registrar for 720 hours from the completion of an inter-Registrar
> transfer. Accordingly, the Registrar MAY remove the 720-hour
> inter-Registrar transfer restriction early only if all of the below
> conditions are met:
>
>
>
> 18.1:  The Registrar MUST be able to demonstrate that it received a
> specific request to remove the 720-hour restriction from the Registered
> Name Holder;
>
>
>
> 18.2:  The Registrar MUST ensure the request to remove the restriction was
> requested by the Registered Name Holder;
>
>
>
> 18.3: The specific request includes a reasonable basis for removal of the
> restriction, which [includes but is not] limited to [(i) well informed,
> documented, clearly intentional request by the registrant; (ii) mutual
> agreement between the prior and current Registrar of a transfer back to the
> prior Registrar;] (iii) legitimate circumstances surrounding an escrow
> intermediary affecting the completion of the acquisition of the involved
> registered domain name; (iv) to complete documented registered domain name
> acquisition (aftermarket purchase, portfolio consolidation, or bona fide
> purchase); (v) intentional release of the registered domain name that had
> transferred to the Registrar where it becomes evident the domain name use
> would be in violation of the Registrar’s Acceptable Use Policy (AuP), Terms
> of Service (ToS), or local law or other similar governance.
>
>
>
> 18.4:  The Registrar MUST maintain a record demonstrating the request to
> remove the restriction (regardless of outcome) for a period of no fewer
> than fifteen (15) months following the end of the Registrar’s sponsorship
> of the registration.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20241209/0010396d/attachment.htm>