<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.xmsolistparagraph, li.xmsolistparagraph, div.xmsolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:x_msolistparagraph;
margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.xapple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:x_apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:116602712;
mso-list-template-ids:-1321807698;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2078898544;
mso-list-template-ids:303741086;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="en-BE" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">Draft recommendations are now available on post-registration and post-transfer locks
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RGow_TYPSESvI9DFweF3T_g7vgufg6zCwEdSsUjBfqs/edit">
here</a> (see pages 5 and 6). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">In addition, our internal ICANN org SMEs have been invited to provide early input on the discussions covering this topic. Below you will find a responses from two of the SMEs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US">Julie, Caitlin, Berry, and Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="xmsonormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
<li class="xmsolistparagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-US">Post-Transfer Lock: This if implemented, will greatly impact the domain name trading business.</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="xmsolistparagraph" style="margin-left:36.0pt;font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Currently, many domain name trading activities will use an “Escrow Registrar” acting as intermediary, where the domain name owner will transfer the name to that “Escrow Registrar” after a deal is agreed. Then once the
“Escrow Registrar” receives the funds from the buyer, it will immediately release the domain name to the buyer, and buyer can immediately transfer the domain name to its desired registrar.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsolistparagraph" style="margin-left:36.0pt;font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">By imposing this mandatory lock, will unnecessarily delay the domain name being transferred to the buyer’s own registrar. Further, to fight with fraudulent transfers, we do have TDRP that registrants can use.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsolistparagraph" style="margin-left:36.0pt;font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm;font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px" start="2" type="1">
<li class="xmsolistparagraph" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-US">I’d recommend that all these requirements being only registrar level policies, and all RA/RRA should be silent on this. That way, registrar can implement the policy
pertain to their business model and don’t have to struggle between ICANN policies and registry requirements.</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="xmsolistparagraph" style="margin-left:36.0pt;font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Using the above Post-Transfer Lock in domain name trading business as an example, the current TP used sentence as “The Registrar of Record<span class="xapple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>may</i></b><span class="xapple-converted-space"> </span>deny
a transfer request only in the following specific instances: …” this give the registrar the flexibility in implementation that fits their business.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="border:none;padding:0cm"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">I think that the selection of parameters for the post-creation lock is easy. In the gTLD market, .com is the largest, and the majority of the gTLD domains are .com; therefore,
.com already showed us what is possible.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">The rationale for post-creation lock says: "Provides registrars with a reasonable period of time to address issues related to chargebacks associated with fraudulent transactions." From my experience
working for a registry and a registrar, you can get chargebacks after 10 days. A period of 60 days seems more reasonable for handling chargebacks. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">I think that applying the post-creation lock at the Registry-level makes more sense. From my experience, it was easier to develop security controls/policies at the Registry-level because as the
Registrar deals with the public, there are more exceptions to be handled. For example, for a Registrar is easy to say, "apologies, this lock is applied at the registry, there is nothing that I can do", when you get calls from external VIPs asking you to make
exceptions. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From a security perspective, regarding the post-transfer lock, preventing repeated transfers in rapid succession is a control that could mitigate bad actors using rapid successions transfers to
hide tracks. I think that 60 days sounds reasonable.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">I don’t see issues with a 60-day period for post-transfer locks, the escrow registrar would be the registrar sponsor for the gaining registrant during the 60 days-period. If the gaining registrant
doesn't want to be with the escrow registrar, they can move after 60 days. If you have money to buy domain names in the secondary market, you probably have money to do another transfer after 60 days.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">In the end, the market adapts, and if currently, the escrow registrars don't provide all the features of a typical registrar, the escrow registrar will start delivering them, or the typical Registrar
will offer escrow services.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>