November 2021 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ykmxm9uv The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/xoDOCg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Transfer Policy Review Team: Question about the 60-days lock
by Steinar Grøtterød Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Dear all, At the TPR WG Meeting on Nov 9, 2021, the 60-days locks were discussed. The present policy – and the majority of Registry Operators, have a 60-days transfer lock after the initial registration of a domain name AND a 60-days lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer. Based on the discussion in the TPR WG, I would like to hear the CPWG opinion by asking the following: 1. Are we in favor of keeping the 60-days lock after the initial registration of a domain name? 2. Are we in favor of keeping the 60-days lock after a successful transfer of a domain name? 3. Could the above be optional? 4. Should the Registrant has the option to opt-out? I did not have the time to discuss this with the At-Large TPR members and observers, hence will not ask for a poll. But hopefully CPWG can express their view at the CPWG call on Nov 10, 2021. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød

14 27

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ykmxm9uv The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/xoDOCg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Proposed text to be sent to the Transfer Review Policy PDP re the 60 days lock questions
by Steinar Grøtterød Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Dear all, I kindly ask you to make your comments to the proposed text to be sent to TPR-PDP WG. The upcoming TPR-PDP meeting is scheduled to Tuesday Nov 23, 2021 at 16:00 UTC. Please make your comment using https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkkWGmxg6wWgAkU4qSX_DvCVbda9kkh466b-7O6… The proposed text: The Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) is the At-Large forum for discussing policy related issues and giving advice to the ICANN community. At-Large is represented in the GNSO transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (TPR-PDP) with 2 members, 2 alternates and 4 observers. The At-Large CPWG members continuously inform the CPWG members about the progress in the TPR-PDP working group and seek feedback and advice in essential questions given by the work in the TPR-PDP. In order to get the CPWG input to questions connected to preventing transfers to be initiated and executed after an initial registration of a generic domain name, and after a successful transfer between accredited registrar of a generic domain name, a “poll” was held during the CPWG meeting on November 17 2021. The “poll” was conducted based on the discussion held at the CPWG meeting on November 10 2021 and the email communication on the CPWG mailing list. While not mandated in ICANN policy, some Registry Operators have provisions in their Registry Agreement that require a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock after the initial registration of a domain name AND/OR after a successful inter-registrar transfer. Note: This should not be confused with Change of Registrant requirements where a “material change” of name or email address will also lock the domain against inter-registrar transfers for 60 days following the Change of Registrant, if the registrant does not opt-out of this lock. Some TPR-PDP working group members have noted that this practice of post-domain creation locks or post inter-registrar transfer locks are not consistent across the industry, which may be confusing for registrants. Some TPR working group members believe that the working group should recommend that the Transfer Policy include requirements for the 60-day lock after initial registration, although the working group is still discussing the rationale for doing so. When questioned, a significant number of the CPWG members were in favour of not defining an ICANN policy requiring a 60-days lock after an initial registration of a domain name. CPWG members with a long “ICANN history” informed the group about the rationale for having a 60-days lock after initial registration to be credit card check and chargeback. The 60-days lock was introduced in 1998/1999. The majority of the CPWG members argued that credit card checks and chargeback is no longer a huge problem. The result of the poll questioning whether an ICANN required policy for a 60-days lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer, indicated a majority was in favour of not defining an ICANN policy of a 60-days lock after a successful transfer. However, the number for keeping a lock after a successful transfer was higher than for having a lock after an initial registration of a domain name. CPWG members signaled that locking a domain name after a successful transfer reduces the possibility for “registrar hopping '' i.e. changing registrars to prevent paying and (often) continuing with suspicious activity as security threats. Poll questions connecting to whether there should be an option for registrars and registrants to “opt-out” of locking a domain name for transfer either after the initial registration or a successful inter-registrar transfer, indicated that this should NOT be an option. Finally, the CPWG members were asked to get their view on whether the “60-days” was the preferred number for a transfer lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer. The poll’s alternatives were “yes” (keep the 60-days), “lower than 60 days”, “higher than 60-days” and “Abstain/not sure”. A majority of the CPWG members were in favor of a lower number of days locking a transfer after a successful inter-registrar transfer. It must be emphasized that the outcome of the “poll” is NOT the final input to these questions. The poll result MUST be seen as a guidance to At-Large TPR-PDP members. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød

1 0

Considerations about the latest polls
by Roberto Gaetano Nov. 21, 2021

Nov. 21, 2021

Dear all, I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for voting Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance “unnecessary” delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who want the grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal actions that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer. I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between efficiency and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s have the 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe, let’s eliminate the 60d. Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs “compulsory” grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d want at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while those who are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out in the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out). In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of the length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a bit to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both parties unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently secure. I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger people might have a different approach… :-) Have a nice weekend, Roberto

4 4

DRAFT: Text to be distributed to TPR-PDP WG regarding the 60-days lock questions
by Steinar Grøtterød Nov. 20, 2021

Nov. 20, 2021

Dear all, Based on the poll held at the CPWG call on Nov. 17, 2021, I have drafted a text to inform the TPR-PDP WG. The next TPR-PDP meeting is scheduled to Nov 23, 2021, hence hope to have your feedback asap. The document can be commented using https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkkWGmxg6wWgAkU4qSX_DvCVbda9kkh466b-7O6… The proposed text: The Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) is the At-Large forum for discussing policy related issues and giving advice to the ICANN community. At-Large is represented in the GNSO transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (TPR-PDP) with 2 members, 2 alternates and 4 observers. The At-Large CPWG members continuously inform the CPWG members about the progress in the TPR-PDP working group and seek feedback and advice in essential questions given by the work in the TPR-PDP. In order to get the CPWG input to questions connected to preventing transfers to be initiated and executed after an initial registration of a generic domain name, and after a successful transfer between accredited registrar of a generic domain name, a “poll” was held during the CPWG meeting on November 17 2021. The “poll” was conducted based on the discussion held at the CPWG meeting on November 10 2021 and the email communication on the CPWG mailing list. While not mandated in ICANN policy, some Registry Operators have provisions in their Registry Agreement that require a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock after the initial registration of a domain name AND/OR after a successful inter-registrar transfer. Note: This should not be confused with Change of Registrant requirements where a “material change” of name or email address will also lock the domain against inter-registrar transfers for 60 days following the Change of Registrant, if the registrant does not opt-out of this lock. Some TPR-PDP working group members have noted that this practice of post-domain creation locks or post inter-registrar transfer locks are not consistent across the industry, which may be confusing for registrants. Some TPR working group members believe that the working group should recommend that the Transfer Policy include requirements for the 60-day lock after initial registration, although the working group is still discussing the rationale for doing so. When questioned, a significant number of the CPWG members were in favour of not defining an ICANN policy requiring a 60-days lock after an initial registration of a domain name. CPWG members with a long “ICANN history” informed the group about the rationale for having a 60-days lock after initial registration to be credit card check and chargeback. The 60-days lock was introduced in 1998/1999. The majority of the CPWG members argued that credit card checks and chargeback is no longer a huge problem. The result of the poll questioning whether an ICANN required policy for a 60-days lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer, indicated a majority was in favour of not defining an ICANN policy of a 60-days lock after a successful transfer. However, the number for keeping a lock after a successful transfer was higher than for having a lock after an initial registration of a domain name. CPWG members signaled that locking a domain name after a successful transfer reduces the possibility for “registrar hopping '' i.e. changing registrars to prevent paying and (often) continuing with suspicious activity as security threats. Poll questions connecting to whether there should be an option for registrars and registrants to “opt-out” of locking a domain name for transfer either after the initial registration or a successful inter-registrar transfer, indicated that this should NOT be an option. Finally, the CPWG members were asked to get their view on whether the “60-days” was the preferred number for a transfer lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer. The poll’s alternatives were “yes” (keep the 60-days), “lower than 60 days”, “higher than 60-days” and “Abstain/not sure”. A majority of the CPWG members were in favor of a lower number of days locking a transfer after a successful inter-registrar transfer. It must be emphasized that the outcome of the “poll” is NOT the final input to these questions. The poll result MUST be seen as a guidance to At-Large TPR-PDP members. ******** Poll questions and results. THESE WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED Based on the discussions, we would like to hear the CPWG opinion by asking the following: 1. Are we in favor of ICANN policy requiring a 60-day lock after the initial registration of a domain name? · Yes (18%) · No (71%) · Abstain/Not sure (11%) 2. Are we in favor of ICANN policy requiring a 60-day lock after a successful transfer of a domain name? · Yes (31%) · No (59%) · Abstain/Not sure (10%) 3. Could the above be optional for the registrar to implement? In other words, should the registrar have the option to opt-out of these locks? · Yes (23%) · No (57%) · Abstain/Not sure (20%) 4. Should the Registrant have the option to opt-out? · Yes (30%) · No (60%) · Abstain/Not sure (10%) 5. Is "60 days" the preferred number of days for a lock after a successful transfer? · Yes (20%) · Should be lower than 60 days (57%) · Should be more than 60 days (7%) · Abstain/Not sure (17%) Regards, Steinar Grøtterød

2 1

INFO/CPWG - Final Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on Proposal for Latin Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
by Evin Erdogdu Nov. 19, 2021

Nov. 19, 2021

Hello CPWG members, As per the 17 November CPWG meeting, please find the Google Doc of the ALAC Statement on Proposal for Latin Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules for final comment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bP37sLCgChI1v-SJe7z_ZG_0VFM1wh8sqSG1urB… Please provide your final comments, if any, on the Google Doc or At-Large workspace for the statement: https://community.icann.org/x/zAOHCg Thank you, Evin Ashley Erdoğdu Policy Analyst Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ykmxm9uv<https://tinyurl.com/4p99633e> The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/xoDOCg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN Policy Calendar Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ykmxm9uv<https://tinyurl.com/4p99633e> The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/xoDOCg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

***STARTING NOW*** / REMINDER - TODAY 19:00 UTC - At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 17, 2021

Nov. 17, 2021

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/4p99633e [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4p99633e__;!!PtGJab4!o5CzXXI…> The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/WwO7Cg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZV…> Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN__;…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.adigo.com/icann__;!!PtGJab4!o5CzXXIc…> At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/atlarge.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!o5CzXXIcI…> Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/icannatlarge__;!!PtGJab…>atlarge [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/icannatlarge__;!!PtGJab…> Twitter: @ [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge__;!!PtGJab4!o5C…>ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge__;!!PtGJab4!o5C…>

1 0