The turd polishers at ICANN have produced yet another highly polished turd of a report regarding domain name transfer policy, that is open for public comments until 23:59 UTC time on Monday June 16, 2025 (i.e. less than 24 hours from the time of this blog post). The report is being voted upon by the ICANN Board, so this is really the final opportunity to go “on the record” with your input (which will in all likelihood be completely ignored, but some of us still choose to submit comments regardless).

Our complete submission is now visible on ICANN’s website here, or you can read the main 19 page PDF here.

For a small taste of the contents of the document, here’s the “Conclusion” section from the final page of the PDF:

The analysis presented herein underscores that the “push-based” transfer system and enhanced WHOIS transparency within the Losing FOA are not merely incremental improvements but represent fundamental shifts necessary for establishing robust domain name security and ensuring comprehensive registrant protection in the evolving digital landscape. These proposals address inherent vulnerabilities in the current transfer policy that the Transfer Policy Review Working Group’s Final Report has, regrettably, failed to adequately address.

The working group’s dismissal of the push-based system due to a stated preference for “incremental change” and perceived workload reveals a systemic bias within ICANN policy development towards minor adjustments over truly transformative ideas. This incrementalist approach inherently limits ICANN’s capacity to achieve optimal security and fulfill its mandate, highlighting the critical need for Board intervention. Furthermore, the dominance of registrars within this working group and the referral of critical proposals to “Tech Ops,” which is not a true multistakeholder forum, point to a fundamental challenge within ICANN’s multistakeholder model regarding the perceived balance of power and influence. The Board’s decision on this report will therefore signal its commitment not only to domain transfer security but also to the integrity of genuine multistakeholder engagement and registrant representation, thereby impacting ICANN’s overall legitimacy and accountability.

Therefore, it is strongly urged that the ICANN Board reject the Transfer Policy Review Working Group’s Final Report in its current form. The Board should instead mandate further work by a truly multistakeholder body, with explicit instructions to thoroughly evaluate and prioritize the push-based transfer system and the enhanced WHOIS transparency proposal within the Losing GOA. This decisive action would demonstrate a commitment to innovation and prioritize registrant security over incrementalism or the vested interests of specific contracted parties. By taking such a course, the ICANN Board would not only address critical security deficiencies but also reaffirm its dedication to its core mission and the principles of a balanced, accountable multistakeholder model.

Theo Develegas, the author of DomainGang, has a personal blog. He wrote about a .co.uk transfer today:

https://acro.net/blog/enom-end-of-an-era-the-fastest-domain-transfer-ever/

which noted:

What surprised me was the way .co.uk domains are transferred to another registrar, in this case Spaceship. After unlocking the domain, I went to Spaceship to begin the transfer out which required to copy an IPS tag into the domain’s record.

What is an IPS tag for domains, you may ask. It’s like a reverse authentication code: You get it from the registrar you move your .co.uk domain to and provide it to the registrar where the domain sits at.

The moment the IPS tag was updated at eNom the domain was no longer there. It was an instant change of registrar! All I had to do next was complete the transfer at Spaceship by submitting the request. The domain appeared in my account, once again instantly.

That’s the kind of “push” system  for domain name transfers that I’ve been advocating for more than 2 years at ICANN, for gTLD domain names like .com. It’s already in production. There’s no excuse now for ICANN not to adopt this, at least as a pilot project, for gTLD domain names.

Prepare to be blown away! 

As regular readers of this blog will be aware, I’ve written extensively about proposed changes to the ICANN Transfer Policy.  Last week, I blogged about my 2024 submission to ICANN. It also mentioned my previous extensive submissions in 2022.

Today, I read about an interesting AI tool created by Google called NotebookLM which is able to summarize documents and even create audio podcasts. So, as an experiment, I uploaded my 2024 and 2022 ICANN submissions into NotebookLM, and here’s the result (7 minutes and 41 seconds in length).

(if you’re having trouble using the media player, the MP3 file is here)

Isn’t that simply incredible?

Continue reading “AI-generated Audio Podcast about ICANN Transfer Policy”

ICANN has another public comment period regarding transfer policy. The deadline to submit comments is Monday September 30, 2024 at 23:59 UTC time.

My company’s submission can be read here. I focused on the lack of consideration of a “push” system of transfers, and lack of overall consideration of registrants’ input.

This isn’t the first time that ICANN has asked for input on transfer policy. My company submitted substantial comments in 2022 as well, which the captured working group, dominated by registrars, has not incorporated into its latest set of recommendations.

As this is likely the final opportunity to impact the working group’s final recommendations before they’re sent to the GNSO Council (despite being misleadingly labelled as an “Inital Report“, which I called out in my latest comments), now is the time to make a submission on this important topic which affects registrants.

Hopefully my company’s submission of today, and also from 2022, will help stimulate your own thinking, before you submit your own comments.

[For posterity and archival purposes, one can find a PDF version of my submitted comments here.]