Dear Working Group members, Following Tuesday’s WG call, staff had an action item to research the origins of the following sentence, in bold, included in one of the reasons that a transfer may be denied: 1.A.3.7.3: No payment for previous registration period (including credit card charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer. This sentence appears in the 2002 ICANN DNSO Transfers Task Force Final Report & Recommendations<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi...>, under recommendation 24. In the Report section Other Observations and Considerations, the following additional text is included “9. It is recommended that the Losing Registrar use the EPP or RRP command set equivalent of “Registrar Hold” prior to receiving a transfer notification from the Registry as a mechanism to secure payment from a Registrant in the event of non-payment. The Losing Registrar should not use the EPP or RRP command set equivalent of “Registrar Lock” for this same purpose.” We found some additional discussion on page 13 of the 2008 GNSO Final Report on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy:<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_6444/final-report-irt-p...> Clarification of Reasons for Denial<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_6444/final-report-irt-p...>, which was carried over from the Issue Report: “"4.2.8 The current provision in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy also provides that prior to denying any transfer requests for non-payment under this clause, a registrar must have placed the domain name on “Registrar Hold” status. This does not appear to be the usual practice, with many registrars using “Registrar Lock” status instead. It should be noted that “Registrar Hold” removes the name from the zone and causes it not to resolve, while a name in “Registrar Lock” may continue to function but will not be able to be transferred. As part of the discussion regarding this provision, it may be helpful to consider whether one is preferable to the other in instances of nonpayment.” It does not appear that the subsequent policy development work resulted in any changes to the language referenced above. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Caitlin, Berry, Julie, and Emily Emily Barabas Policy Development Support Senior Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>