Public Comment Summary Report
Initial Report on the Transfer Policy ReviewPhase 1(a)Open for Submissions Date:
Tuesday, 21 June 2022
Closed for Submissions Date:
Tuesday, 16 August 2022 (Extended from Tuesday, 02 August 2022)
Summary Report Due Date:
Tuesday, 30 August 2022 (Extended from Tuesday, 16 August 2022)
Category:
PolicyRequester:
Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)ICANN org Contact(s):policy-staff@icann.org
Open Proceeding Link:
https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-transfer-policy-review21-06-2022
Outcome:This Public Comment proceeding was initially scheduled to remain open from 21 June 2022
through 2 August 2022. The Public Comment proceeding was extended by two weeks inresponse to requests for additional time to submit input. The working group received a total of
34 submissions from groups, organizations, and individuals.
The working group is now beginning a thorough review of the Public Comment submissions
received on this Initial Report and will consider whether any changes need to be made to its
Phase 1(a) recommendations.

Section 1: What We Received Input On
The Transfer Policy Review’s Phase 1(a) focuses on the following issues: Form of Authorization(FOA) (including EPDP Phase 1, Recommendation 27, Wave 1 FOA issues), AuthInfo Codes,
and Denying (NACKing) transfers. The Phase 1(a) Initial Report outlines the core issues
discussed, includes proposed responses to charter questions, and provides accompanying
preliminary recommendations.

||1

The working group sought input on the preliminary recommendations contained in its Phase1(a) Initial Report as well as several outstanding questions on which the working group has not
yet reached agreement. The Public Comment proceeding was presented as a series ofstructured questions and also provided an opportunity for respondents to provide generalsubmissions. The working group requested that responses to the questions include detailed
rationale to support further analysis of the relevant issues.

Section 2: Submissions||2

Organizations and Groups:
Name

Submitted by

Security and Stability Advisory Committee(SSAC)ICANN staff supporting SSAC

DataCube.com

Brad Mugford

TucowsSarah Wyld

Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG)

RySGBusiness Constituency (BC)BC

Article 19

Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

Internet Commerce Association

Zak Muscovitch

ICANN org

Isabelle Colas-Adeshina

Incredible Names

Mark Ageeb

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)ICANN staff supporting ALAC

GoDaddy

Jody Kolker

Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

George Kirikos

Com Laude

Sophie Hey

NonCommercial Stakeholder Group(NCSG)

Mesumbe Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Namecheap

Owen Smigelski

Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG)

Zoe Bonython

Newfold Digital

Eric Rokobauer

Dynadot LLC

Alexander Levit

Hiperderecho

Lucía León

Initials

Individuals:

|

Name

Affiliation (if provided)

Initials

Andrew Alleman

N/A

AA

Edward Seaford

N/A

ES

Ted Chang

N/A

TC

Jason Banks

N/A

JB

Tanner Tootoosis

N/A

TT

Meka Egbor

N/A

ME

David Johnson

N/A

DJ

Ron Jackson

N/A

RJ

M Omair Haroon

N/A

MOH

Elizabeth G. Harris

N/A

EH
|3

Keolebogile Rantsetse

N/A

KR

Samwel Kariuki

AFRALO

SK

Philip Busca

N/A

PB

John Poole

Editor of DomainMondo.com

JP

Section 2a: Late Submissions
At its discretion, ICANN org accepted a late submission, which has been appended to thissummary report.
Organizations and Groups:
Name

Submitted byIntellectual Property Constituency (IPC)

Mike Rodenbaugh

Initials

Section 3: Summary of Submissions
The working group welcomed feedback from the community on any of the draft
recommendations in the report, which included:
Preliminary Recommendation 1:
Preliminary Recommendation 2:
Preliminary Recommendation 3:
Preliminary Recommendation 4:
Preliminary Recommendation 5:
Preliminary Recommendation 6:
Preliminary Recommendation 7:
Preliminary Recommendation 8:
Preliminary Recommendation 9:
Preliminary Recommendation 10:
Preliminary Recommendation 11:
Preliminary Recommendation 12:
Preliminary Recommendation 13:
Preliminary Recommendation 14:
Preliminary Recommendation 15:
Preliminary Recommendation 16:
Preliminary Recommendation 17:
Preliminary Recommendation 18:
Preliminary Recommendation 19:
Preliminary Recommendation 20:
Preliminary Recommendation 21:|

Gaining FOA
Losing FOA
Notification of TAC Provision
Notification of Transfer Completion
Update Term “AuthInfo Code” to “Transfer Authorization
Code (TAC)TAC Definition
TAC Composition
Verification of TAC Composition
TAC Generation, Storage, and Provision
Verification of TAC Validity
TAC is One-Time Use
Service Level Agreement (SLA) for TAC Provision
TAC Time-to-Live (TTL)
Terminology Updates: Whois
Terminology Updates: Administrative Contact and Transfer
Contact
Transfer Restriction After Initial Registration
Transfer Restriction After Inter-Registrar Transfer
Format of Transfer Policy Section I.A.3.7
Revised Reasons that a Registrar of Record MAY Deny a
Transfer
New Reasons that a Registrar of Record MUST Deny a
Transfer
Revised Reasons that a Registrar of Record MUST Deny a
Transfer|4

Preliminary Recommendation 22:

Revised Reasons that a Registrar of Record MUST NOTDeny a Transfer

The working group also sought specific guidance with respect to the following preliminary
recommendations:• Preliminary Recommendation 4: Should the Gaining Registrar’s IANA ID be provided by
the Registry Operator to the Losing Registrar so that it may be included in the
Notification of Transfer Completion sent by the Losing Registrar to the Registered Name
Holder?
• Preliminary Recommendation 13: Who is best positioned to manage the standard 14day TTL – the Registry or the Registrar, and why?
To facilitate its review of the Public Comment submissions, the staff support team developed aset of Public Comment review tools, which provide a high-level assessment of the views
expressed on the preliminary recommendations as well as the detailed submissions provided byeach contributor. All contributions received and Public Comment review tools can be reviewed
here.

Section 4: Analysis of Submissions
The working group is responsible for the review and analysis of submissions, and will be
reviewing all submissions via the Public Comment review tools and further deliberations during
meetings. Please note at the time of publication of this report, review of the submissions by theworking group was in the early stages.
In organizing the Public Comment submissions, the support staff team took note of subject
areas where there is a relatively high concentration of submissions expressing concerns or
proposing alternative language, which may provide an initial indication that a greater share of
the working group’s attention should be devoted to the corresponding preliminary
recommendations. Examples of such topics include Elimination of the Losing FOA andreplacement with notifications to the RNH (see Preliminary Recommendations 2, 3, and 4), TAC
time to live (see Preliminary Recommendation 13), and transfer restriction after initial
registration and inter-Registrar transfer (see Preliminary Recommendations 16 and 17). In
addition, the working group received a number of substantive responses to the questions it
posed for community input, which will be an additional area of focus.
For the avoidance of doubt, the working group will carefully consider all submissions on all
recommendations in the course of its Public Comment review.

Section 5: Next Steps
After reviewing the Public Comment submissions on the Phase 1(a) Initial Report, the working
group will complete Phase 1(b) of its work, including publication of a Phase 1(b) Initial Reportfollowed by a Public Comment proceeding on the Phase 1(b) Initial Report. The working groupwill finalize all Phase 1 recommendations in a single Phase 1 Final Report to be sent to the
GNSO Council.

||5Initial Report on the Transfer Policy Review - Phase 1(a)Category: Policy
Requester: Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)ICANN org Contact(s) emily.barabas@icann.org

Please Read These Important Instructions Before Submission.
The form used for this Public Comment proceeding seeks to:•••

Clearly link comments to specific sections of the Initial Report
Encourage commenters to provide reasoning or rationale for their opinions
Enable the sorting of comments so that the working group can more easily read all thecomments on any one topic

There is no obligation to answer all questions – respond to as many or as few questions as desired.
Additionally, there is the opportunity to provide comments on the general content of the Initial
Report or on new issues not raised by the Initial Report.
Please refer to the specific recommendation and relevant section or page number of the Initial
Report for additional details and context about each recommendation. Where applicable, you areencouraged to reference sections in the report for ease of the future review by the working group.
As a reminder, it is important that your comments include a rationale. The Working Group isinterested in your reasoning so that the conclusions reached, and the issues discussed by theworking group can be tested against the reasoning of others.

Section 1: Information about Submission

First NameMike

Last Name
Rodenbaugh[ _ ] Check if you prefer to have your affiliation displayed as the author of this submission, rather
than the first and last nameAffiliation
Intellectual Property Constituency

Are you providing input on behalf of another group (e.g., organization, company,
government)?

( _ ) No( o ) Yes
If yes, please explain.
I formally represent the IPC in this Working Group.

Emailmike@rodenbaugh.com

Section 2: Preliminary Recommendations 1-4 on Losing andGaining Forms of Authorization

Preliminary Recommendation 1: Gaining FOA

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 1 on page 14 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 1.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 1, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 2: Losing FOA

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 2 on page 18 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 2.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 2, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 3: Notification of TAC Provision

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 3 on page 18 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 3.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 3, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 4: Notification of Transfer Completion

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 4 on pages 18-19 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 4.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 4, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Question for Community Input

As detailed in Recommendations 3-4, the working group is recommending replacing theStandardized Losing FOA with two notifications to the Registered Name Holder: (i) a required

“Notification of TAC Provision” and (ii) a required “Notification of Transfer Completion.”
Recommendation 4 details the minimum elements to be included in the Notification of Transfer
Completion, including, for example, domain name, date/time of transfer completion, instructions
on how to act if the transfer is invalid. The working group discussed the possibility of including the
IANA ID of the Gaining Registrar within this notification.
Note: The IANA ID is the unique number provided by ICANN to each accredited Registrar. The
IANA ID can be helpful in identifying the correct Registrar, especially in situations where Registrars
have similar names and/or have multiple subsidiaries with similar names.
In the working group’s discussion, Registrars noted that not all Registry Operators use the Gaining
Registrar’s IANA ID when notifying a Losing Registrar of a pending transfer request. Instead, some
Registry Operators use a separate, internal client ID that does not correspond to the IANA ID.
Registry representatives asked if this question could be included in the Public Comment forum toallow additional time to discuss if it would be feasible to include the IANA ID when notifying theRegistrar via EPP or otherwise, which would then allow the Losing Registrar to provide the IANA ID
in the Notification of Transfer Completion. Please note all commenters are welcome to respond to
this question, not just Registry Operators.

Question to the community: Should the Gaining Registrar’s IANA ID be provided by
the Registry Operator to the Losing Registrar so that it may be included in the
Notification of Transfer Completion sent by the Losing Registrar to the Registered
Name Holder? Why or why not? Please explain.

Yes. This will facilitate communications in the event of a dispute or any other problem relating to
the transfer.

Section 3: Preliminary Recommendations 5-13 on Transfer
Authorization Codes (TAC)Preliminary Recommendation 5: Update Term “AuthInfo Code” to “Transfer
Authorization Code (TAC)”

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 5 on page 22 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 5.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 5, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 6: TAC Definition

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 6 on page 22 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 6.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 6, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 7: TAC Composition

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 7 on pages 22-23 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 7.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion

If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 7, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 8: Verification of TAC Composition

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 8 on page 23 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 8.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 8, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 9: TAC Generation, Storage, and Provision

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 9 on pages 23-24 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 9.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 9, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 10: Verification of TAC Validity

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 10 on page 24 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 10.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 10, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 11: TAC is One-Time Use

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 11 on page 24 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 11.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 11, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 12: Service Level Agreement (SLA) for TAC
Provision

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 12 on page 25 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 12.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 12, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 13: TAC Time to Live (TTL)

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 13 on pages 25-26 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 13.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 13, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Question for Community Input

The working group noted that the standard Time to Live (TTL), as referenced in Preliminary
Recommendation 13.1 is the period of time that the TAC is valid once the TAC has been created.
The purpose of the standard TTL is to enforce security around unused TACs (e.g.,
requested/received but not used), in a situation where the TAC may be stored in a registrant’s
email or other communications storage. The working group agreed to a maximum standard TTL of
14 days.
In discussing this Charter Question, the working group initially discussed the benefits of placing
the Registry in the role of enforcing the standard TTL. The working group noted that Registry
authority would be more secure and streamlined due to the lesser number of Registry Operators
as compared to ICANN-accredited Registrars.
Registry Operators, however, have expressed two concerns in taking on this role: 1) Registries do
not have a customer relationship with registrants, and, accordingly, cautioned that having

Registries preemptively invalidate a TAC directly impacts registrants; 2) this gives Registries acompliance responsibility over Registrars since they would be required to respond to authorities
and potentially registrants investigating any concerns with the efficacy or expiry of a TAC.

Question to the community: Who is best positioned to manage the standard 14day TTL – the Registry or the Registrar, and why? Are there specific implications if
the TTL is managed by the Losing Registrar?

No opinion at this time, pending further discussion.

Section 4: Preliminary Recommendations 14-15 on EPDP Phase
1, Recommendation 27, Wave 1 Report Items

Preliminary Recommendation 14: Terminology Updates: Whois

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 14 on page 28 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 14.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 14, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 15: Terminology Updates: Administrative Contact
and Transfer Contact

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 15 on page 29 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 15.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 15, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Section 5: Preliminary Recommendations 16-22 on Denying(NACKing) Transfers

Preliminary Recommendation 16: Transfer Restriction after Initial Registration

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 16 on page 31 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 16.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 16, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 17: Transfer Restriction after Inter-Registrar
TransferPlease find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 17 on page 31 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 17.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 17, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 18: Format of Transfer Policy Section I.A.3.7

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 18 on page 32 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 18.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 18, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 19: Revised Reasons that a Registrar of Record
MAY Deny a Transfer

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 19 on pages 32-34 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 19.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 19, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 20: New Reasons that a Registrar of Record MUST
Deny a Transfer

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 20 on pages 34-35 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 20.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 20, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 21: Revised Reasons that a Registrar of Record
MUST Deny a Transfer

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 21 on pages 35-36 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 21.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 21, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Preliminary Recommendation 22: Revised Reasons that a Registrar of Record
MUST NOT Deny a Transfer

Please find the text of Preliminary Recommendation 22 on page 36-38 of the Initial Report.

Please choose your level of support for Preliminary Recommendation 22.

( o ) Support Recommendation as written( _ ) Support Recommendation intent with wording change( _ ) Significant change required: changing intent and wording( _ ) Recommendation should be deleted( _ ) No opinion
If your response requires an edit or deletion of Preliminary Recommendation 22, please indicate
the revised wording and rationale here.

Section 6: Other Comments and Submission

Are there any recommendations the Working Group has not considered? If yes,
please provide details below.

Are there any other comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to theInitial Report? If yes, please enter your comments here. If applicable, please specify
the section or page number in the Initial Report to which your comments refer.

Attachment
File Name

Size

Summary of Attachment
Please provide a summary of your attachment. This summary should include whether yourattachment is in addition to completing the Public Comment Proceeding form or if yourattachment is in lieu of completing this form (max. of 2,000 characters).

Summary of Submission
Please provide a summary of your Public Comment Submission. This summary should include astatement that reflects the overall position of your Submission and other high-level observations
or recommendations. This summary is public and published on the Public Comment Submission
page along with a link to your Submission (max. of 2,000 characters).

The IPC supports the recommendations to date. We generally support clarity, consistency andtransparency in the domain name transfer process. We support the requirement of 30-day
mandatory registrar locks upon initial registration and inter-registrar transfer, as a means to avoid
domain theft and to resolve transfer disputes and other transfer problems. We support the otherrecommendations which generally clarify the existing IRTP and bring it up to date with current
industry practices and other ICANN policies.

[ x ] By submitting your personal data, you agree that your personal data will be processed inaccordance with ICANN Privacy Policy, and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service

https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos