ICANN Resolutions » Approval of GNSO Council Request for CEO & Registrar Stakeholder Group to evaluate alternatives for the implementation of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTP-C)
Important note: The Board Resolutions are as reported in the Board Meeting Transcripts, Minutes & Resolutions portion of ICANN's website. Only the words contained in the Resolutions themselves represent the official acts of the Board. The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.
Whereas, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council sent a letter [PDF, 109 KB] to the ICANN Board on 1 December 2016 ("GNSO Council Letter") regarding implementation concerns with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy ("Transfer Policy") – Part C.
Whereas, the GNSO Council Letter requested the Board to instruct ICANN Org to work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group and other interested parties to evaluate alternatives for the implementation concerns related to Transfer Policy Part C.
Resolved (2017.03.16.05), the Board instructs the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group and other interested parties to evaluate alternatives for the implementation concerns related to Transfer Policy Part C and to report back to the GNSO Council with the results of the discussion.
Why is the Board addressing this issue now?
On 1 December 2016, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council delivered a letter [PDF, 109 KB] to the ICANN Board, in which it raised concerns related to the implementation of Transfer Policy Part C. The Board is addressing the issue now because the updated Transfer Policy has already been implemented, and the policy cannot be modified without direction from the Board.
What is the proposal being considered?
The GNSO Council delivered a letter [PDF, 109 KB] to the ICANN Board, in which it is requesting the Board to do the following: (1) instruct ICANN Org to work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group and other interested parties to evaluate alternatives for evaluation of the implementation concerns, which could include moving this issue to the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team, reconstituting the Transfer Policy Part C Implementation Review Team, or employing some other new mechanisms under the Policy & Implementation principles and requirements from the from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report [PDF, 1.53 MB], adopted by the GNSO Council; and (2) instruct ICANN Org to defer any privacy/proxy service compliance enforcement from the Transfer Policy relating to the enabling or disabling of privacy/proxy services pending further consultation and determination of this issue.
Specifically, the concerns relate to whether the addition/removal of a privacy/proxy service potentially triggers the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock described in the updated Transfer Policy. The policy recommendations were silent with respect to the addition/removal of privacy/proxy services, and at the time the policy was implemented, the current issue and potential harms described by the GNSO Council were not brought to ICANN org's attention.
The requests from the GNSO Council seek to further discuss the addition/removal of privacy/proxy services and the potential harms associated with the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock in the updated Transfer Policy.
What stakeholders or others were consulted?
These updates to the Transfer Policy were discussed with the GNSO Council, Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the ICANN community at multiple public sessions at ICANN meetings.
What significant materials did the Board review?
In adopting its response to the GNSO Council Letter, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:
Transfer Policy https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en
Redline against previous version of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transfer-policy-redline-25ma... [PDF, 551 KB]
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Working Group C Final Report (9 October 2012) https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf [PDF, 1.93 MB]
Registrar Stakeholder Group letter to GNSO Council (31 October 2016) (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19339.html
GNSO Council Letter (1 December 2016): https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-01dec16-en.pdf [PDF, 109 KB]
Board Response Letter (21 December 2016) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-bladel-2... [PDF, 265 KB]
Are there positive or negative community impacts?
The adoption of the GNSO Council's request will have a positive impact on the community because it will ensure that the community can further discuss an issue the Working Group failed to address, as well as the potential harms the GNSO Council described regarding the addition/removal of privacy/proxy services within the Transfer Policy.
Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
There is no fiscal impact expected.
Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.