Board chairman instructs ICANN to defer compliance on part of new transfer policy.
On December 1, a new domain name transfer policy went into effect that requires both the previous and new registrant of a domain name to approve changes to certain registrant information.
This creates an unintended headache for whois privacy and proxy services, as the approval would be required whenever privacy is added or removed. (Learn more about this in DNW Podcast #111.)
Yesterday, ICANN chairman Stephen Crocker informed GNSO Council chair James Bladel that he would instruct ICANN’s compliance group to defer enforcement actions on the new transfer policy as it relates to privacy and proxy services.
This gives privacy and proxy services some breathing room while a new solution is devised.
The deferral does not appear to contemplate a second challenge for some proxy services, however. Some of these services cycle through masked registrant email addresses as a way to cut down on spam. Technically, every time a new email is added to the registrant in whois, the transfer policy approval process will be triggered.
John says
Progress… That was quite a concerning aspect of the matter.
Josh says
I know I transferred a domain last week where privacy factored in. The receiving rar rejected sending the transfer request because the losing rar’s name had privacy activated. They simply requested the privacy be removed before a transfer request would be resent. We did so and it was approved. I was then told not all rars will follow such a policy and it will be hit and miss who refuses to send or rejects requests on names with privacy. So it would seem when buying or selling a name with privacy it is best to remove it before a transfer is attempted to avoid going back and redoing it if required. We should form a list of what rars will and will not enforce these guidelines.
Joseph Peterson says
It’s astonishing that ICANN is amending the policy (or enforcement of that policy) after it was devised. Aren’t they paid enough to foresee such obvious pitfalls? And if they didn’t foresee them, shouldn’t they have asked around? Open comment periods aren’t enough in practice. Go seek out advice beforehand from registrars, auction platforms, and large portfolio owners! It’s not that hard.
Josh says
“Go seek out advice beforehand from registrars, auction platforms, and large portfolio owners! It’s not that hard.”
But that makes too much sense Joe, isn’t it easier and lazier just to allow them to decide if they apply the policies…oh wait that is what they do.