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-7O6j... 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