#ICANN49

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D PDP Working Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D PDP Working GroupGroup

#ICANN49

Charter Question A + Preliminary Recommendations

2

Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;

PR #1*: The WG recommends that reporting requirements for dispute providers be incorporated into the TDRP policy.

PR #2*: The WG recommends that the TDRP be amended to include language along the lines of this revised version of the UDRP that assure publication of the outcome of TDRP cases

*Recommendations are shortened for full wording see http://tinyurl.com/irtpinitialreport

#ICANN49

Charter Question B + Preliminary Recommendations

3

Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred

PR #3* The TDRP be amended to reflect PR #4

PR #4* A domain name be returned to the Registrar of Record if a non-IRTP compliant domain name transfer has occurred even if this was followed by subsequent multiple compliant transfers. PR #5* The statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.

PR #6* If a request for enforcement is initiated under the TDRP the relevant domain should be ‘locked’ against further transfers.

*Recommendations are shortened for full wording see http://tinyurl.com/irtpinitialreport

#ICANN49

Charter Question C + Preliminary Recommendations

4

Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf)

The WG does not recommend that dispute options for registrants be developed as part of the TDRP. PR #7* The GNSO to ensure that IRTP-C inter-registrant transfer recommendations implementation includes appropriate dispute-resolution mechanisms, or an Issue Report to be called for.

PR #8* The TDRP to be modified to eliminate the First Level (Registry) layer of the TDRP (?)

*Recommendations are shortened for full wording see http://tinyurl.com/irtpinitialreport

#ICANN49

Charter Question D + Preliminary Recommendations

5

Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants

PR #9* ICANN to create and maintain a one-stop website containing all relevant information concerning disputed transfers and potential remedies to registrants.

PR #8* ICANN accredited Registrars to display prominently a link on their website to this ICANN registrant help site.

*Recommendations are shortened for full wording see http://tinyurl.com/irtpinitialreport

#ICANN49

Charter Question E + Preliminary Recommendations

6

Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy

PR #11 No additional penalty provisions be added to the existing policy. The penalty structures in the 2009 RAA and the 2013 RA are sufficiently nuanced to deal with IRTP violations.

PR #12 As matter of principle, GNSO Consensus Policy should avoid policy-specific sanctions. Rather, it is desirable that the RAA and RA penalty structures be drafted in a way that assures uniformity and consistency of policy violation penalties .

#ICANN49

Charter Question F + Preliminary Recommendations

7

Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

The WG does not recommend the elimination of FOAs.

#ICANN498

The Working Group welcoming all community feedback but is seeking comments especially on these four preliminary recommendations/issues:

- Whether to increase the statue of limitation to initiate a TDRP from currently 6 to 12 months (Q-B)

- What costs to reimburse if a transfer is reversed to the original registrar of record in a TDRP involving multiple transfers (Q-B)

- Whether there is a need to define ‘non-compliant transfer’ in the context of TDRP (Q-B)

- Whether the Registry level should be eliminated as the first dispute resolution of the TDRP (Q-C)

#ICANN49

Next Steps and Further Info

9

• Options to engage with the WG andprovide feedback to help the WG toformulate its Final Report:

• Public Forum open until 03 April

• Reply period until 25 April

• Face-to-Face Workshop during ICANN 49 in Singapore, Wednesday 26 March 10.30am

• Further Information:• http://tinyurl.com/irtpinitialreport• http://tinyurl.com/irtppublicforum • http://tinyurl.com/irtpwiki

#ICANN49

Thank You!All questions, comments, and suggestios

are welcome!

#ICANN49

AnnexAnnex

#ICANN49

Background I

• The IRTP is a 2004 consensus policy developed through the GNSO’s policy development process (PDP) and is currently under review by the GNSO through a series of PDPs

• The IRTP provides a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer domain names between registrars.

• On the recommendation of the IRTP Part C WG, the GNSO Council agreed to combine all the remaining IRTP issues into this final PDP, IRTP Part D, in addition to one issue that was raised by the IRTP Part C WG in its Final Report.

#ICANN49

Background II

13

• This PDP is the fourth and final policy development process ofdifferent aspects of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

• ICANN’s Compliance Department received a total of 3816 valid IRTP- related complaints between January 2012 and February 2013 alone, making it the most common issue of community complaint.

• The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D PDP Working Group is chartered by the GNSO Council to answer six questions in relation to the IRTP

#ICANN49

IRTP Part D Time Line

14

• 17 October 2012: GNSO Council request Issue Report

• 12 November 2012: Preliminary Issue Report

• 8 January 2013: Final Issue Report

• 17 January 2013: Resolution to initiate IRTP-D PDP Working Group and adoption of Charter

• 23 February 2013: First meeting of Working Group

• 03 March 2014: Submission of Initial Report and opening of Public Forum

• ICANN 50 London: Target for Final Report

#ICANN49

Charter Questions A-C

15

a. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions

b. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred

c. Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf

#ICANN49

Charter Questions D-F

16

d. Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants

e. Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy

f. Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs