UPDATE November 30, 2016: Philip Corwin has today advised Domain Mondo that the letter by James Bladel on behalf of the GNSO Council, embedded below, "is still under development and has not yet been sent." Domain Mondo obtained the letter from ICANN via one of its public daily briefing emails with the text "GNSO Council to ICANN Board Thursday, November 24 2016 05:20 PM" and a direct link to the letter (pdf) with no other reference either on the ICANN website or GNSO website.
In the world of ICANN, incompetence begets incompetence and compounds itself in perpetuity:
New transfer policy QA | OpenSRS.com: "At OpenSRS, we believe that the ICANN community who came up with this new policy did a disservice to [domain name] registrants. The policy requirements do not add any positive element to the experience of managing a domain name, and there has been no consideration how this policy would align with the number of other ICANN mandated policies which are already in place. Nonetheless, OpenSRS is, like all other ICANN accredited registrars, bound by the terms of the Transfer Policy .." (emphasis added). For more see News Review | What Is ICANN? | New ICANN Domain Name Transfer Policy.
The new ICANN Domain Name Transfer Policy effective December 1, 2016 has been sharply criticized as indicated in the quote above, and now it has come to light that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) which developed this flawed policy (one of many flawed policies that the GNSO is renown for propagating without proper forethought or competence), has now had second thoughts about the way the policy was implemented by ICANN staff, and in a letter (embed further below) states:
"the GNSO Council respectfully requests the ICANN Board of Directors to instruct ICANN staff to (a) remove any privacy/proxy service compliance from the Transfer Policy and to transfer the issue to the PPSAI Implementation Review Team for evaluation and recommendation, and (b) to withhold any compliance enforcement of the Transfer Policy relating to the enabling or disabling of privacy/proxy services pending the outcome of the PPSAI IRT."
Truth is the whole Domain Name Transfer Policy is flawed as OpenSRS noted above. But the GNSO Council, as is typical, takes no responsibility for its incompetent policy-making, and instead blames ICANN staff for misinterpreting the policy in the implementation phase:
"Although the the IRTP Part C policy recommendations are silent on the issue, ICANN staff, based on initial guidance from the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team, interprets the Transfer Policy to require registrars to implement the CoR when any change is made to the public WHOIS data, even when that change does not result in a change to the underlying customer data. The RrSG has pointed out, however, that this approach is untenable as it guts the intent of the Transfer Policy (as the actual registrant may change without the process being triggered) and creates significant operational complications for routine changes carried out by P/P providers.1 While ICANN staff is sympathetic to these challenges, they are obliged to represent what they see as the direction provided by the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team (IRTP-C IRT)."
The ICANN community members who developed this flawed policy are listed here and include some current members of the GNSO Council, including Chair James Bladel (GoDaddy) and Philip Corwin (Internet Commerce Association). Who were the members of the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team (IRTP-C IRT)? Unknown, that information is either hidden or buried on the ICANN and GNSO websites (ICANN likes to hide information and keep things "secret" from public view), though the mailing list includes GNSO Chair James Bladel, author of the GNSO Council letter embedded below:
GNSO Council letter (highlighting added) embed below (pdf):
*posting revised in accordance with Update(s)
feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo