[CPWG] Resending Transfer Complaint metrics

[Steinar Grøtterød]

Dear Olivier,

Thanks for the questions.

I have problems responding to your question “But why is ICANN not pursuing such complaints where there is domain hijacking?” In my view/understanding, the metrics from ICANN Compliance for “unathorized transfers” cannot be counted as potential domain hijacking. I recommend listen to the recordings from the GNSO-TPR meeting on Jan 30, 2024 where ICANN Compliance present the metrics. https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2024-01-30+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call

The high number in 2021 is connected to termination of an accredited Registrar.

I hope this help understanding the metrics.

Regards,
Steinar Grøtterød

From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Date: Saturday, 6 April 2024 at 02:38
To: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar at recito.no>, CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Resending Transfer Complaint metrics
Thanks for this, Steinar.

Looking at the table, there are indeed many reasons why the complaints be closed as invalid, with a very small amount (15) in the period covered by 2023 and even less before. But why is ICANN not pursuing such complaints where there is domain hijacking? Are there other avenues an end user would follow for this?

My other question relating to this topic is why 2021 was a huge year for transfer related complaints being received. And an even larger number for Transfer Complaints Closed. That year, barely 6% of complaints were passed on to the Contracted Party.
Did procedures change since?

Kindest regards,

Olivier
On 04/04/2024 10:27, Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG wrote:
Dear CPWG,

During the CPWG discussion on the Change of Registration data (CORD) on April 3, 2024, a question was asked in the chat about metrics connected to domain hijacking.

I have attached data given by ICANN Compliance for the periode Sep 2020-Oct 2023 that include unauthorised transfers. This metrics was given to the GNSP-TPR working group as information when the working group discussed the CORD policy.

I hope this metric is ansers some questions. My understanding is that “domain hijacking” is not necessary tracked by ICANN Compliance. Registrars also reports a low number of unauthorised transfers.

Regards,

Steinar Grøtterød




_______________________________________________

CPWG mailing list

CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg



_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.



--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20240407/77a4e2a8/attachment.html>