1. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Presentation of Initial Report

2. Agenda 2 Welcome (Avri Doria & James Bladel, Co-Chairs) Background Proposed Recommendations Outstanding issues Discussion / Comments

3. Background 3

4. Why is it important? Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Straightforward process for registrants to transfer domain names between registrars Currently under review to ensure improvements and clarification – nr 1. area of consumer complaints according to data from ICANN Compliance 4

5. IRTP Part C PDP Working Group IRTP Part C WG tasked to address three issues: a)"Change of Control" function b)Should Form Of Authorization (FOA)s be time-limited c)Should registries be required to use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. WG conducted data gathering survey – 100 responses received In addition to weekly conference call, email deliberations, public comment forum & SG/C statements Initial Report published on 4 June 2012 5

6. Initial Report Recommendations 6

7. Charter Question A 7 Currently there is no policy in relation to “change of control” or “change of registrant” Having a “change of registrant” policy might address certain issues currently encountered Most ccTLDs have a process in place to manage change of registrant WG recommends the adoption of a change of registrant consensus policy

8. Requirements of New Policy Both the prior registrant as well as the new registrant need to authorize the change of registrant (can be provided in the form of pre-approval or proxy) A change of registrant cannot take place simultaneously with a change of registrar. If both changes need to be made, a change of registrar needs to be completed prior to initiating the change of registrant Process should not create unfair advantage / disadvantage for any of the segments active in the domain name industry and should not prevent innovation & differentiation 8

9. Open Issues 9 Should there be a restriction following a change of registrant to prevent an immediate change of registrar (e.g. 60-day lock)? Which changes qualify as a change of registrant? Should it be a stand-alone policy, part of the IRTP or hybrid solution? Any unforeseen impacts of the proposed policy?

10. Questions 10

11. Charter Question B 11 Currently no specifications in the IRTP related to timing or limits to use of FOAs. Poses risk that unexpired FOA could be used later on for an unauthorized transfer. Survey conducted by WG found that majority of respondents currently impose a time limit; majority supports time limiting; however, majority had not had or heard of or seen issues as result of no time-limit.

12. Recommendations 12 IRTP to be revised to include: ‘Once obtained, an FOA is valid for (45 or 60) calendar days, or until the domain name expires, or until there is a Change of Registrant, whichever occurs first The FOA is enhanced to support pre- authorized or auto-renewed FOAs by a registrant who has chosen to opt out of time-limiting requirements

13. Open Issues 13 Time-Limit (45 – 60 days, other?) Implementation of this recommendation should be accompanied by the appropriate security measures to protect registrants from hijacking attempts using pre-approval as the attack vector. The details of such security measures are to be discussed in further detail. Any unforeseen impacts of the proposed recommendations?

14. Questions 14

15. Charter Question C 15 When a registrar accredits with ICANN, an ID is assigned by ICANN to identify that particular registrar When a registrar accredits with a particular registry, that registry may also assign a proprietary ID Primary driver for using proprietary IDs by some registries is security Poses difficulties to identify the registrar correctly at times

16. Charter Question C 16 May be manageable in current environment, but with new gTLDs situation may drastically change Data gathering survey found that majority of respondents: had not experienced problems; felt that standardization would simplify transfers; felt that the effort to standardize IANA IDs would be ‘minimal’ to ‘some’

17. Recommendation 17 All gTLD Registry Operators be required to publish the Registrar of Record’s IANA ID in the TLD’s thick Whois. Existing gTLD operators that currently use proprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they must also publish the Registrar Record’s IANA ID. This recommendation should not prevent the use of proprietary IDs by gTLD Registry Operators for other purposes.

18. Open Issues 18 Any unforeseen impacts of the proposed recommendation?

19. Questions 19

20. Next Steps 20 Public Comment Forum open until 4 July, reply period open until 25 July - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public- comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12- en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/news/public- comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12- en.htm WG will review comments received, continue deliberations on open issues and intends to finalize report for submission to the GNSO Council by ICANN Meeting in Toronto (October 2012)

21. Discussion 21

22. Thank You