Changes

In November, 2008, certain changes were made to the policy following advice from the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>[http://www.namesmash.com/icann-at-work-on-inter-registrar-transfer-policy/ NameSmash]</ref><ref>[http://192.0.43.22/en/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm ICANN Announcements]</ref>

In November, 2008, certain changes were made to the policy following advice from the [[ICANN Board]].<ref>[http://www.namesmash.com/icann-at-work-on-inter-registrar-transfer-policy/ NameSmash]</ref><ref>[http://192.0.43.22/en/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm ICANN Announcements]</ref>

As of 2011, the [[GNSO]] is again reviewing the policy with respect to the issues of domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and "lock status". On May 31st, 2011, the IRTP Working Group submitted a report featuring 9  suggested changes to the policy.<ref>[http://www.domainpulse.com/2011/05/31/icann-nine-recommendations-to-improve-the-inter-registrar-transfer-policy-irtp-part-b-wg-submits-final-report/ DomainPulse]</ref> The revised policy was open for comments from  July 8th, 2011, to August 8th, 2011.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-08jul11-en.htm ICANN Announcements]</ref>

In 2011, the [[GNSO]] again reviewed the policy with respect to the issues of domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and "lock status." On May 31st, 2011, the IRTP Working Group submitted a report featuring 9  suggested changes to the policy.<ref>[http://www.domainpulse.com/2011/05/31/icann-nine-recommendations-to-improve-the-inter-registrar-transfer-policy-irtp-part-b-wg-submits-final-report/ DomainPulse]</ref> The revised policy was open for comments from  July 8th, 2011, to August 8th, 2011.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-08jul11-en.htm ICANN Announcements]</ref>

===Initial Issues===

===Initial Issues===

While the policy was under development ICANN raised few issues and requested for the public to give their comments so that an effective policy could be made. The questions published by ICANN were:<ref>[http://www.namesmash.com/icann-at-work-on-inter-registrar-transfer-policy/ NameSmash Blog]</ref>

While the policy was under development, ICANN raised few issues and requested for the public to give their comments so that an effective policy could be made. The questions published by ICANN were:<ref>[http://www.namesmash.com/icann-at-work-on-inter-registrar-transfer-policy/ NameSmash Blog]</ref>

* Should registrars keep the email address of registrant in their database, so that he can be easily contacted when needed?

* Should registrars keep the email address of registrant in their database, so that he can be easily contacted when needed?

* Should the security of registrant data be increased in order to prevent hacking and spoofing? Should there be a Form of Authorization present to apply a double check?

* Should the security of registrant data be increased in order to prevent hacking and spoofing? Should there be a Form of Authorization present to apply a double check?

===2012 Changes===

===2012 Changes===

In January, 2012, ahead of its February [[ICANN 43]] meeting, the organization announced that it was considering changes to its IRTP. The GNSO council approved those changes, which entail defining a universal 5 day maximum allowable lock period for domains that have had changes made to the registrant's name in the [[Whois]] record. Domains with changes made to the name of the registrant in the Whois record are locked to prevent transfer, the policy is seen as helping prevent [[Domain Hacking|domain hacking]]. The new rule is seen as largely a response to [[GoDaddy]]'s current 60 day lock policy, which has been a continued target for criticism. GoDaddy, through its representative [[James Bladel]], was involved in creating the proposed changes.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/end-in-sight-for-go-daddys-60-day-transfer-lock/ End in Sight for Go Daddys 60 Day Transfer, DomainIncite.com]</ref>

In January, 2012, ahead of its February [[ICANN 43]] meeting, the organization announced that it was considering changes to its IRTP. The GNSO council approved those changes, which defined a universal 5 day maximum allowable lock period for domains that have had changes made to the registrant's name in the [[Whois]] record. The new rule was seen as largely a response to [[GoDaddy]]'s 60 day lock policy, which had been a continued target for criticism. GoDaddy, through its representative [[James Bladel]], was involved in creating the proposed changes.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/end-in-sight-for-go-daddys-60-day-transfer-lock/ End in Sight for Go Daddys 60 Day Transfer Lock, DomainIncite.com]</ref>

 

==Additional Links==

==Additional Links==