Dear all, As announce at the CPWG meeting on Nov. 27, 2024, my proposal for an alternative to Recommendation 33 (if needed). RECOMMENDATION # 33: Request to GNSO for further work on Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy and Potential New Dispute Mechanism INITIAL REPORT LANGUAGE The working group recommends the GNSO request an Issues Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of (i) expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and (ii) creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. In making this recommendation, the working group recognizes that if such an effort were ultimately adopted by the GNSO Council, this request could be resource-intensive and will require the Council to consider the appropriate timing and priority against other policy efforts. UNDER CONSTRUCTION (Staff prepared recommendation based on received input to the Initial Report) The working group recommends the GNSO request an Issues Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of (i) expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and (ii) creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. In making this recommendation, the working group recognizes that if such an effort were ultimately adopted by the GNSO Council, this request could be resource-intensive and will require the Council to consider the appropriate timing and priority against other policy efforts. [There remains a need for an intermediary mechanism to remedy unauthorized transfers between ToS claw backs and litigation as well as other issues as may be identified by the GNSO]. Option 2: The working group recommends expanding the TDRP to registrant filers who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. At-Large input to the Initial Report: "At-Large has advocated for a domain name holder the possibility to initiate a dispute based on the reviewed Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. At-Large has addressed this in the GNSO-TPR WG discussions and as comment to the Request for Early Input on GNSO-TPR PDP Phase 2 Topics (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/167543988/AL-ALAC-CO-0423-0...). At-Large welcomes the understanding as given in the proposed Rec. #33 to see that the Registered Name Holder (RNH) is a natural part in a Transfer Dispute. However, At-Large has the opinion that the Rec. #33 should be worded for a RNH to initiate a Transfer Dispute under the revised Transfer Policy. We believe this can be done without a time-consuming PDP." Supporters of the Initial Recommendation: Support Recommendation as Written (with comments added): * Tucows, Inc.: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tra... * Com Laude: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tra... * Registrar Stakeholder Group: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tra... * Internet Commerce Association: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tra... Support Recommendation Intent with Wording Change: * Business Constituency: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tra... * International Trademark Assoc (INTA): https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tra... STATUS AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION Based on the discussions in the working group, my understanding is that a majority prefer to ask GNSO to start a PDP process. To avoid such a lengthily process, a compromise could be to include a wording where the Registrant can request and get data from the Registry Operator and the involved registrars when the Registrant don't get the support to start a TDRP. With this dataset, the Registrant can use ICANN Compliance before going to court. I hope members of this mailing list can contribute in how to avoid a recommendation to start a PDP, in addition to comment my proposal. I kindly ask for your input either on the mailing list or comment on the CPWG agenda for December 4, 2024. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød At-Large representative Transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process