Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

Status Report for Ongoing GNSO Policy Development Processes

Currently, there are four GNSO PDPs ongoing:


Details of Policy Development Process

Details of Policy Development Process

1. IRTP Part B

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. As part of an overall review of the IRTP, which will cover five new PDPs, the GNSO Council requested an issues report in preparation for a second PDP on 16 April 2009. The issues covered in the Issues Report on IRTP Part B address concerns related to undoing transfers and registrar lock status, more specifically:

  1. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed;
  2. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC).
  3. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
  4. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
  5. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in “lock status” provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP Working Group published its Initial Report on 29 May. The Initial Report presents a number of preliminary conclusions and recommendations for Community input including a proposed Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy., Following the ICANN meeting in Brussels a public comment forum will be opened (see Following review of the public comments received, the WG will work on finalizing its report.

For further information, please consult the IRTP Part B Working Group Workspace.

Issues Report  Initiation Public Comment   WG Report Posting Public Comment Final Report Council Deliberation  Recommendation to Board Public Comment Board Vote

Further information:

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy -

IRTP Part B Issues Report - [PDF, 260 KB]

IRTP Part B WG Workspace -

2. Fast Flux Hosting

On 26 March 2008, Staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. The request for the issues report reflects community concerns about techniques used by cybercriminals to evade detection by rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or name server. In the Report, Staff recommended that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices concerning fast flux hosting. At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council formally launched a policy development process (PDP) and called for creation of a Working Group on fast flux which was chartered on 29 May 2009.

The Fast Flux Hosting Working Group submitted its Final Report [PDF, 5.06 MB] providing answers to the questions posed by the GNSO Council in the charter on 6 August 2009. The group also developed a definition of fast flux attacks, to distinguish these from legitimate uses of fast flux; and compiled fast flux metrics, also in the report.

The Fast Flux Hosting Working Group did not make any recommendations for new consensus policy, nor changes to existing policy, but it has provided a number of ideas for next steps. These ideas include:

  • Highlight which solutions / recommendations could be addressed by policy development, best practices and/or industry solutions
  • Consider whether registration abuse policy provisions could address fast flux by empowering registries / registrars to take down a domain name involved in malicious or illegal fast flux
  • Explore the development of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System
  • Explore the possibility of ICANN as a best practices facilitator
  • Explore the possibility to involve other stakeholders in the fast flux policy development process
  • Redefine the issue and scope.

The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the Fast Flux Hosting Final Report at its meeting on 3 September, and resolved:

  • To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux
  • That the Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux
  • To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions
  • To encourage Staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a “best practices facilitator” within the community
  • To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts
  • To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.
  • To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan, with a set of priorities and a schedule, that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010.
Issues Report  Initiation Public Comment   WG Report Posting Public Comment Final Report Council Deliberation  Recommendation to Board Public Comment Board Vote

Further information:

Fast Flux Issues Report - Fast Flux GNSO Issues Report (25 March 08) and translations

Fast Flux Working Group Wiki -

Fast Flux Final Report - [PDF, 5.06 MB]

3. Registration Abuse Provisions

On 25 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a motion requesting an issues report on registration abuse policies. The objective of the issues report was to identify existing provisions in registry-registrar agreements relating to abuse as well as to identify and describe potential options for further Council consideration. The issues report was submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration on 29 October 2008. The GNSO Council decided not to initiate a PDP yet, but first task a Working Group to investigate further some of the open issues identified in the Issues Report, such as the difference between registration abuse and domain name use abuse; the effectiveness of existing registration abuse policies; and which areas, if any, would be suitable for GNSO policy development to address registration abuse. The GNSO Council will not make a decision on whether or not to initiate a PDP on registration abuse policies until the RAP Working Group has presented its findings. The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group published its Final Report on 29 May. Following a public comment period on its Initial Report, the Working Group reviewed the comments received and issued this Final Report. The Report includes concrete recommendations to address domain name registration abuse in gTLDs for consideration by the GNSO Council. Included are recommendations related to:

  • Cybersquatting: recommending the initiation of a Policy Development Process to investigate the current state of the UDRP.
  • WHOIS access problems: seeking ways to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion; and requesting that the ICANN Compliance Department publish data about WHOIS accessibility.
  • Malicious use of domain names: recommending the creation of best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names.
  • Front-running: recommending possible enforcement actions by ICANN Compliance
  • Cross-TLD registration scam: recommending to monitor and co-ordinate research with the community
  • Uniformity of contracts: recommending the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements.
  • GNSO-wide practices for the collection and dissemination of best practices, and for uniformity of reporting.
  • Fake renewal notices
  • Domain kiting
  • Deceptive and/or offensive domain names

The GNSO Council will now consider the report and its recommendations.

Issues Report   Initiation Public Comment   WG Report Posting Public Comment Final Report Council Deliberation  Recommendation to Board Public Comment Board Vote

Further information:

Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report - [PDF, 297 KB]

Translations of the Executive Summary of the Issues Report -

Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Wiki -

Registration Abuse Policies Final Report - [PDF, 1.81 MB]

4. Post-expiration Domain Name Recovery

During the ICANN meeting in Cairo, the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The request was received by the GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. The issues report was submitted to the GNSO Council for review on 5 December 2008. At its meeting on 7 May, the GNSO Council adopted a motion initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery. Issues that will be considered in this PDP include, whether:

  • Adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
  • Adequate expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
  • Adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
  • Additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);
  • To allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group published its Initial Report on 31 May. In addressing the charter questions, the WG reviewed current registrar and ICANN practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. Furthermore, in order to assess the views of the WG members and determine where there might be agreement or consensus on a possible approach forward, a survey was conducted amongst the WG membership, details of which are included in the Initial Report. The WG is encouraging the ICANN Community to provide input on the different questions and options outlined in the Initial Report. Further details on how to provide input will be provided as part of the public comment period that will be launched following the ICANN meeting in Brussels. This will allow the widest possible input to be taken into account during the second phase of the PDP during which the WG hopes to reach consensus on a proposed way forward for each of the charter questions.

Issues Report   Initiation Public Comment   WG Report Posting Public Comment Final Report Council Deliberation  Recommendation to Board Public Comment Board Vote

Further information:

ALAC Request for Issues Report on Post-expiration Domain Recovery -

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report - [PDF, 422 KB]

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report - [PDF, 1.02 MB]

PEDNR WG Workspace -

5. Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries.

The GNSO Council approved a request for an Issues Report on 26 September 2009, on the topic of Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries. The Issues Report was delivered to the GNSO Council for its review on 11 December 2009. On 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council voted to initiate a Policy Development Process on vertical integration between registrars and registries. This PDP is to be conducted an expedited basis, with an expected duration of sixteen (16) weeks. The PDP will evaluate which policy recommendations should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed under the ICANN Bylaws.

Issues Report   Initiation Public Comment   WG Report Posting Public Comment Final Report Council Deliberation  Recommendation to Board Public Comment Board Vote

Further information:

Vertical Integration Issues Report - [PDF, 241 KB]

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy