Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt secondary market

[biggedon]

BTW, I came up with a possible solution, namely an "Irrevocable Transfer Procedure." That would give people a choice, see:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00334.html

Hi George


that seems like a good solution with a title

but what about registrars like enom, who don't have the "60 day" hold period for internal pushes

how about if the buyer gets or has an account with the same registrar as the seller, then the seller "pushes" the domain to the buyer.

then the buyer transfers to another registrar.

is the risk ruduced?

[GeorgeK]

You've got the Chairman of the working group, Michele Neylon, showing spite towards so-called "domainers", thinking that it's only going to negatively affect them:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00407.html

"So I'm meant to feel sorry for domainers?"

And also suggesting that there's no "proof" that people need more time (despite the examples I already provided in my post

http://twitter.com/mneylon/status/18683355859

@GeorgeKirikos .. .. who want to make comments but don't have time? Where are they? Where's the proof? #ICANN

Hopefully folks can submit a quick comment to demonstrate that we need more time, even though I already showed that evidence in my comment at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00415.html (5 examples!)

Let me explain why the ETRP affects everyone in the domain industry, in a nutshell. It would allow for "seller's remorse" because domain transfers could be undone anytime within 6 months without any due process, and with no built-in dispute mechanism at present (unlike the TDRP). It is supposed to be limited to domain hijackings, but there aren't any "qualifiers" to it. This despite the issues report saying any emergency procedure needed to be "qualified" to situations where the magnitude of the harm was great, and tested to ensure that there was no opportunity for "gaming", i.e. to allow an attacker to misuse the procedure to reverse hijack a name.

So, suppose you are buying a domain name. You have to factor in as a buyer that the domain name could be clawed back (causing you legal fees, etc.). That lowers the value of the domain name, as it's coming with a built-in risk, a built-in liability. So, instead of paying $10K for a domain name, you might pay $8K. Or, you might not even do the deal at all. You might say "oh, that doesn't affect me, we only sell domains. A-ha, but when the buyer is buying from you, you can jump and down all day long saying you'll never use the ETRP against them.....but it's still a risk for the buyer. So, the price you get for a domain name will always be lower to a rational buyer. So, uniformly it lowers ALL domain name values.

If transfers are currently "irrevocable", but suddenly become undoable, it's kind of like what would happen to "money", if everyone suddenly was forced to stop using wire transfers (i.e. which are
essentially irrevocable), and *had* to use credit cards for ALL transactions. Markets would be in chaos, because there'd be a big risk to deal with in ALL payments (i.e. chargebacks, credit risk).

So, it's just not "sophisticated buyers" or "domainers" who need the irrevocability to exist....it's everyone, sellers, holders, developers, etc. lest all domain names become devalued and tainted.
Just imagine if the same "undo" rules were in effect in the housing market....everyone in the housing market from broker to buyer to seller to builder would be affected by the uncertainty. The same would happen to domains, due to uncertainty over true title.

Then there's the side-issue of the 60-day lock on registrant change (i.e. the "GoDaddy so-called "opt-in") which the report commends as a best-practice! (helps that the working group had 2 GoDaddy employees on it, lol) I'm still trying to get that killed via:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00387.html

but so far, silence from ICANN.

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------

Hi George

that seems like a good solution with a title

but what about registrars like enom, who don't have the "60 day" hold period for internal pushes

how about if the buyer gets or has an account with the same registrar as the seller, then the seller "pushes" the domain to the buyer.

then the buyer transfers to another registrar.

is the risk ruduced?

You're assuming all domains you want to buy are at eNom. And furthermore they commend the GoDaddy 60-day so-called "opt-in" lock as a best practice, and presumably at some point ALL registrars would have that. So, you could be stuck at a registrar you don't want to be at, and subject to their own ad-hoc solutions as to what happens in a dispute.

It's like the concept of "FOB" for shipping (Free On Board):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOB_(shipping)

This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that point.

If that risk equation is going to change, because the delivery point for domains is either not where you want the domain to be, or can be "clawed back" by the seller anytime within 6 months, that's going to cause great devaluation for all domains (due to the risk over title).

[Acro]

But Michele's twitter background says that he loves domains and the domain name industry

[GeorgeK]

lol Acro.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

Only takes a moment to ask for more time for comments, folks, and would be greatly appreciated.

Click "Add a Comment" http://is.gd/dulfQ or email irtp-b-initial-report@icann.org

Or if you're ready to submit a comment, do so before the current deadline (July 25 is rapidly approaching, if you've not started the research yet).

(I've archived the current discussions from this board and sent them in as comments, so at least they'll be on the record, although more detailed ones would probably help)

[GeorgeK]

I decided I've had enough of those folks in that workgroup. Here's my parting email to them:

I've come to realize my contributions and expertise aren't being respected in this workgroup. So, I'm leaving. Please remove me from the mailing list.

The ones that think they've produced a "perfect" report will eventually have to deal with the fact that they've left in many loopholes that will be exploited by bad guys. I'm not going to bother pointing out all the gaps in the report, just to have my comments be ignored by folks who have been sloppy and don't want to admit it. It's better that you produce the bad policy, let the worst happen, and deal with those consequences, with your names on the report, not mine. I have the financial resources to route around your bad policies, unfortunately most people don't.

So, farewell. It was a pleasure working with some of you.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on their "work" anymore.....they can just go ahead and do whatever it is they're going to do.

[GeorgeK]

Here's the comment that Fabulous.com just posted regarding the ETRP, which succinctly identifies the loophole in the policy:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-.../msg00007.html

[GeorgeK]

It appears we have victory on the ETRP. Two major proponents of it, NSI and GoDaddy, now seem to have abandoned their support for it:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00577.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00578.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ir.../msg00579.html

So, it should be as good as dead now. That's a nice way to start 2011, with one less idiotic proposal to worry about.

[katherine]

Good stuff. As always, thanks