June 2021 - GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

Proposed agenda for meeting #06 on Tuesday 29 June 2021 at 16.00 UTC
by Emily Barabas 25 Jun '21

25 Jun '21

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 29 June 2021 at 16.00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #06 Proposed Agenda Tuesday 29 June 2021 at 16.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes) 3. Finalize outreach document to SO/AC/SC/Cs (20 minutes) * Please see draft with comments here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… 4. Presentation of updated metrics from ICANN Contractual Compliance (10 minutes) * Please see attached metrics, which will be explained on the call. 5. Continued discussion of AuthInfo Codes (45 minutes) * Staff has updated the Working Document to summarize deliberations that have taken place so far (see text in blue in the document), incorporating and resolving existing comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPofLQCWIQXz8lT7KEj1HgH3b_obh0…. Members are encouraged to review provide feedback. An archive of previous versions of the document is being maintained on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/e4P8CQ 6. AOB (5 minutes) Next meeting: 6 July 2021 @ 16.00 UTC Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [GNSO-TPR] Final Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June:Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs
by Knight, Barbara 24 Jun '21

24 Jun '21

I agree with Sarah’s comments relating to the questions relating to DNS. With regard to the alternative language to correct the “thin” issue, I think that we have to be careful on this one. Even in cases where the Registry holds the data relating to the registrant and admin contacts, technically, the registrar data is authoritative. Further, if there is a proxy or privacy service or the data is redacted due to privacy laws, the registry would most likely not have the underlying data. Given this, I am not sure what the answer is on how to clarify. Regards, Barbara From: GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 2:08 PM To: Roger D Carney via GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-TPR] Final Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June:Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi all, I thought we had confirmed at recent meetings that transferring DNS settings is not in scope for this PDP as it was not included in the scoping paper, issues report, etc. As such, I’m concerned that if we add in questions on that topic to our request for early input it will confuse responders and set inaccurate expectations about what is in scope here. I do agree with the comment on point d4, "thin” is out of place. Perhaps it could say “In cases where the Registry holds registration data, the Gaining Registrar obtains information from the Registry.” Thanks, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/her swyld(a)tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 From: Steve Crocker<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com> Sent: June 23, 2021 1:54 PM To: Emily Barabas<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> Cc: gnso-tpr(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-TPR] Final Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June:Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs Emily, et al, I have added some words related to coordination of DNS operations during a change of registrar. I was not able to edit the document directly via Google docs, so I downloaded the document and inserted changes. Tracking is turned on. I inserted my suggested changes between "c" and "d" so I used the letter x. I believe this belongs in this phase, 1a, because phase 1b looks like it's focused specifically on a change of registrant. The question of coordination of DNS operation could be relevant during a change of registrant but will be much more likely to be relevant during a change of registrar without a change of registrant. Thanks, Steve On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:08 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Tomorrow, Thursday, 24 June is the last day to suggest edits to the outreach letter to SO/AC/SG/Cs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> As a point of clarification, the current task is to make sure that the text of the letter is acceptable and determine if any additional questions need to be asked of SO/AC/SG/Cs as part of this request for input beyond the listed charter questions. Once the WG has finalized the letter, it will be sent to SO/AC/SG/Cs who will have approximately five weeks to respond. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry From: GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-tpr-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday, 21 June 2021 at 11:39 To: "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org>" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org>> Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs Dear Working Group members, As a reminder, if you would like suggest additional questions to include in the request for early input to SO/AC/SG/Cs, please add these questions to the Google Doc no later than this Thursday, 24 June: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 8 June 2021 at 19:28 To: "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org>" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org>> Subject: Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs Dear Working Group members, As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team has prepared a draft outreach document to send to SO/AC/SG/Cs requesting early input on the topics within the TRP PDP’s charter. You can find the draft here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> If you would like to propose edits to the text or would like to suggest additional questions for early input to include in the document, please add comments directly into the Google Document. If anyone is unable to use Google Drive, Word and PDF versions are attached for reference. You can also use Google Doc comments to provide feedback on questions or edits that have been proposed by other members. Please provide your input no later than 24 June 2021. The Working Group call on 29 June will be focused on finalizing this document for submission to the SO/AC/SG/Cs. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1oS_8dAlACq_cWvUqN4f7y0muWP-pmJni073GXfM130lPs5…> _______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR(a)icann.org<mailto:GNSO-TPR@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ILLIILxFHVpSlgFinNdQHz5rZEitnX2lnFbhqDIZuXFBi…>

2 2

Re: [GNSO-TPR] Final Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs
by Steve Crocker 23 Jun '21

23 Jun '21

Volker, I'm certainly not suggesting ICANN *regulate* hosting and mail services. Hosting and mail services are almost always sold as separate services. DNS is usually provided for free. Further, DNS is a supporting service, not a user service. But the implied sense of your question is that we're talking about ICANN *regulating* DNS service. I think that's too narrow of an interpretation. ICANN's interest, and, indeed what everyone's interest should be, is for users to receive reliable and safe service. DNS service falls into a bit of a gray area because it's often supplied by the registrar at no additional cost and hence intimately entangled in the registration service. This is helpful to the registrants, so that's good. But it also means it comes into play during a transfer. The basic proposition, which I think everyone here is working towards, is that registrars should work cooperatively to provide a smooth transition during transfers. In those cases where the registrar is providing DNS service, this means working cooperatively to provide smooth transition of the DNS service during transfers. Thanks, Steve On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 3:43 PM Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > with regard to registrar services, DNS services are ancillary services at > best and mostly fall outside of the ICANN mandate. Many registrants do not > use the free DNS services provided by many registrars but third party > services. Yes, it is true that many registrants do use the services of > their registrar, and that sloppy planning of a migration can lead to > outages, but that is not a service that ICANN regulates, or should > regulate. > The same issues apply when the losing registrar provides hosting or mail > services after all. If not done well, there will be outages. > > Are you suggesting ICANN should regulate hosting and mail services as well? > > -- > Volker A. Greimann > General Counsel and Policy Manager > *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* > > T: +49 6894 9396901 > M: +49 6894 9396851 > F: +49 6894 9396851 > W: www.key-systems.net > > Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of > Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 > CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner > > Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in > England and Wales with company number 8576358. > > This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only > for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended > recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of > dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in > error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this > email with any files that may be attached. > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:54 PM Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> wrote: > >> Volker, >> >> If the registrar is also supplying the DNS service and the registrant >> initiates a change of registrar, the existing registrar will stop providing >> the DNS service. Therefore, the registrant is forced to change DNS service >> as part of changing registrars. If the registrant also wishes for the DNS >> service to continue to work during the transition, some careful >> coordination between the two DNS operations is required. >> >> Steve >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:08 PM Volker Greimann < >> vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: >> >>> I keep wondering what DNS settings and operations have to do with >>> transfers in the first place. Surely the correct DNS settings are the >>> responsibility of the registrant? >>> Volker >>> >>> On Wed 23. Jun 2021 at 19:54, Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Emily, et al, >>>> >>>> I have added some words related to coordination of DNS operations >>>> during a change of registrar. I was not able to edit the document directly >>>> via Google docs, so I downloaded the document and inserted changes. >>>> Tracking is turned on. I inserted my suggested changes between "c" and "d" >>>> so I used the letter x. >>>> >>>> I believe this belongs in this phase, 1a, because phase 1b looks like >>>> it's focused specifically on a change of registrant. The question of >>>> coordination of DNS operation could be relevant during a change of >>>> registrant but will be much more likely to be relevant during a change of >>>> registrar without a change of registrant. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:08 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Tomorrow,** Thursday, 24 June is the last day to suggest edits to >>>>> the outreach letter *to SO/AC/SG/Cs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… >>>>> [drive.google.com] >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As a point of clarification, the current task is to make sure that the >>>>> text of the letter is acceptable and determine if any additional questions >>>>> need to be asked of SO/AC/SG/Cs as part of this request for input beyond >>>>> the listed charter questions. Once the WG has finalized the letter, it will >>>>> be sent to SO/AC/SG/Cs who will have approximately five weeks to respond. >>>>> Please feel free to reach out with any questions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From: *GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily >>>>> Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >>>>> *Date: *Monday, 21 June 2021 at 11:39 >>>>> *To: *"gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> >>>>> *Subject: *[GNSO-TPR] Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft >>>>> outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As a reminder, if you would like suggest additional questions to >>>>> include in the request for early input to SO/AC/SG/Cs, *please add >>>>> these questions to the Google Doc no later than this* *Thursday, 24 >>>>> June*: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… >>>>> [drive.google.com] >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 June 2021 at 19:28 >>>>> *To: *"gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> >>>>> *Subject: *Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document >>>>> requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team has prepared a draft >>>>> outreach document to send to SO/AC/SG/Cs requesting early input on the >>>>> topics within the TRP PDP’s charter. You can find the draft here: >>>>> >>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… >>>>> [drive.google.com] >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you would like to propose edits to the text or would like to >>>>> suggest additional questions for early input to include in the document, >>>>> please add comments directly into the Google Document. If anyone is unable >>>>> to use Google Drive, Word and PDF versions are attached for reference. You >>>>> can also use Google Doc comments to provide feedback on questions or edits >>>>> that have been proposed by other members. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Please provide your input no later than 24 June 2021*. The Working >>>>> Group call on 29 June will be focused on finalizing this document for >>>>> submission to the SO/AC/SG/Cs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Emily Barabas >>>>> >>>>> Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support >>>>> >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>>>> >>>>> www.icann.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> GNSO-TPR mailing list >>>>> GNSO-TPR(a)icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> GNSO-TPR mailing list >>>> GNSO-TPR(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Volker A. Greimann >>> General Counsel and Policy Manager >>> *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* >>> >>> T: +49 6894 9396901 >>> M: +49 6894 9396851 >>> F: +49 6894 9396851 >>> W: www.key-systems.net >>> >>> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of >>> Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 >>> CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner >>> >>> Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in >>> England and Wales with company number 8576358. >>> >>> This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only >>> for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of >>> dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in >>> error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this >>> email with any files that may be attached. >>> >>

2 2

Re: [GNSO-TPR] Final Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs
by Steve Crocker 23 Jun '21

23 Jun '21

Volker, If the registrar is also supplying the DNS service and the registrant initiates a change of registrar, the existing registrar will stop providing the DNS service. Therefore, the registrant is forced to change DNS service as part of changing registrars. If the registrant also wishes for the DNS service to continue to work during the transition, some careful coordination between the two DNS operations is required. Steve On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:08 PM Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: > I keep wondering what DNS settings and operations have to do with > transfers in the first place. Surely the correct DNS settings are the > responsibility of the registrant? > Volker > > On Wed 23. Jun 2021 at 19:54, Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> wrote: > >> Emily, et al, >> >> I have added some words related to coordination of DNS operations during >> a change of registrar. I was not able to edit the document directly via >> Google docs, so I downloaded the document and inserted changes. Tracking >> is turned on. I inserted my suggested changes between "c" and "d" so I >> used the letter x. >> >> I believe this belongs in this phase, 1a, because phase 1b looks like >> it's focused specifically on a change of registrant. The question of >> coordination of DNS operation could be relevant during a change of >> registrant but will be much more likely to be relevant during a change of >> registrar without a change of registrant. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:08 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Working Group members, >>> >>> >>> >>> *Tomorrow,** Thursday, 24 June is the last day to suggest edits to the >>> outreach letter *to SO/AC/SG/Cs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… >>> [drive.google.com] >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> >>> >>> >>> >>> As a point of clarification, the current task is to make sure that the >>> text of the letter is acceptable and determine if any additional questions >>> need to be asked of SO/AC/SG/Cs as part of this request for input beyond >>> the listed charter questions. Once the WG has finalized the letter, it will >>> be sent to SO/AC/SG/Cs who will have approximately five weeks to respond. >>> Please feel free to reach out with any questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily >>> Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >>> *Date: *Monday, 21 June 2021 at 11:39 >>> *To: *"gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> >>> *Subject: *[GNSO-TPR] Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft >>> outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Working Group members, >>> >>> >>> >>> As a reminder, if you would like suggest additional questions to include >>> in the request for early input to SO/AC/SG/Cs, *please add these >>> questions to the Google Doc no later than this* *Thursday, 24 June*: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… >>> [drive.google.com] >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >>> *Date: *Tuesday, 8 June 2021 at 19:28 >>> *To: *"gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> >>> *Subject: *Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document >>> requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Working Group members, >>> >>> >>> >>> As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team has prepared a draft >>> outreach document to send to SO/AC/SG/Cs requesting early input on the >>> topics within the TRP PDP’s charter. You can find the draft here: >>> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… >>> [drive.google.com] >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> >>> >>> >>> >>> If you would like to propose edits to the text or would like to suggest >>> additional questions for early input to include in the document, please add >>> comments directly into the Google Document. If anyone is unable to use >>> Google Drive, Word and PDF versions are attached for reference. You can >>> also use Google Doc comments to provide feedback on questions or edits that >>> have been proposed by other members. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Please provide your input no later than 24 June 2021*. The Working >>> Group call on 29 June will be focused on finalizing this document for >>> submission to the SO/AC/SG/Cs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Emily Barabas >>> >>> Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>> >>> www.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GNSO-TPR mailing list >>> GNSO-TPR(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GNSO-TPR mailing list >> GNSO-TPR(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr > > -- > -- > Volker A. Greimann > General Counsel and Policy Manager > *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* > > T: +49 6894 9396901 > M: +49 6894 9396851 > F: +49 6894 9396851 > W: www.key-systems.net > > Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of > Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 > CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner > > Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in > England and Wales with company number 8576358. > > This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only > for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended > recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of > dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in > error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this > email with any files that may be attached. >

1 0

Final Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs
by Emily Barabas 23 Jun '21

23 Jun '21

Dear Working Group members, Tomorrow, Thursday, 24 June is the last day to suggest edits to the outreach letter to SO/AC/SG/Cs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> As a point of clarification, the current task is to make sure that the text of the letter is acceptable and determine if any additional questions need to be asked of SO/AC/SG/Cs as part of this request for input beyond the listed charter questions. Once the WG has finalized the letter, it will be sent to SO/AC/SG/Cs who will have approximately five weeks to respond. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry From: GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, 21 June 2021 at 11:39 To: "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs Dear Working Group members, As a reminder, if you would like suggest additional questions to include in the request for early input to SO/AC/SG/Cs, please add these questions to the Google Doc no later than this Thursday, 24 June: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 8 June 2021 at 19:28 To: "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> Subject: Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs Dear Working Group members, As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team has prepared a draft outreach document to send to SO/AC/SG/Cs requesting early input on the topics within the TRP PDP’s charter. You can find the draft here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2…> If you would like to propose edits to the text or would like to suggest additional questions for early input to include in the document, please add comments directly into the Google Document. If anyone is unable to use Google Drive, Word and PDF versions are attached for reference. You can also use Google Doc comments to provide feedback on questions or edits that have been proposed by other members. Please provide your input no later than 24 June 2021. The Working Group call on 29 June will be focused on finalizing this document for submission to the SO/AC/SG/Cs. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

3 3

Re: [GNSO-TPR] Transfer statistics for .NO - the top level for Norway
by Steinar Grøtterød 22 Jun '21

22 Jun '21

Hi Volker, Based on the numbers given by NORID, your calculation is correct. Whether a 20% transfer rate is to be considered “high” or “low” compared to other TLDs, is hard to say. My point in sending this to the group, was to give an example that FOAs may not be needed. A valid auth-code is the criteria for a successful inter-registrar transfer – no “paperwork” Regards, Steinar From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 17:06 To: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar(a)recito.no> Cc: "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-TPR] Transfer statistics for .NO - the top level for Norway So that means that about 20% of all .NO domains are transferred every year, auth-code only? -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached. On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:23 PM Steinar Grøtterød <steinar(a)recito.no<mailto:steinar@recito.no>> wrote: Dear Working Group Members, On request to NORID - the .NO Registry Operator, I have received the following numbers for inter-registrar transfers; 2017: 156 270 2018: 149 835 2019: 152 558 2020: 167 688 2021 per 31. May: 70 728 The .NO domain name policy requires only a valid auth-code for an inter-registrar transfer, i.e. no FOAs are required. The above statistics do not include transfers to "REG0" - a process NORID uses for a deletion of a .NO domain name. According to NORID, the number of “disputes” are zero (0) after mandatory auth-codes were implemented for an inter-registrar transfer. Per Dec 31 2020, the total .NO domain names were 805 539 (reference https://www.norid.no/en/aktuelt/2020-et-ar-for-digitale-sjumilssteg/). Updated statistics: https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/nokkeltall/ The .NO domain name registration policy can be found on https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/regelverk-for-no/ Thanks to Hilde Thunem, CEO of NORID for the transfer statistics.. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød At-Large _______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR(a)icann.org<mailto:GNSO-TPR@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr

1 0

Reminder - Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs
by Emily Barabas 21 Jun '21

21 Jun '21

Dear Working Group members, As a reminder, if you would like suggest additional questions to include in the request for early input to SO/AC/SG/Cs, please add these questions to the Google Doc no later than this Thursday, 24 June: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 8 June 2021 at 19:28 To: "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> Subject: Deadline for feedback 24 June: Draft outreach document requesting early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs Dear Working Group members, As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team has prepared a draft outreach document to send to SO/AC/SG/Cs requesting early input on the topics within the TRP PDP’s charter. You can find the draft here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/view?usp=… If you would like to propose edits to the text or would like to suggest additional questions for early input to include in the document, please add comments directly into the Google Document. If anyone is unable to use Google Drive, Word and PDF versions are attached for reference. You can also use Google Doc comments to provide feedback on questions or edits that have been proposed by other members. Please provide your input no later than 24 June 2021. The Working Group call on 29 June will be focused on finalizing this document for submission to the SO/AC/SG/Cs. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Transfer statistics for .NO - the top level for Norway
by Steinar Grøtterød 19 Jun '21

19 Jun '21

Dear Working Group Members, On request to NORID - the .NO Registry Operator, I have received the following numbers for inter-registrar transfers; 2017: 156 270 2018: 149 835 2019: 152 558 2020: 167 688 2021 per 31. May: 70 728 The .NO domain name policy requires only a valid auth-code for an inter-registrar transfer, i.e. no FOAs are required. The above statistics do not include transfers to "REG0" - a process NORID uses for a deletion of a .NO domain name. According to NORID, the number of “disputes” are zero (0) after mandatory auth-codes were implemented for an inter-registrar transfer. Per Dec 31 2020, the total .NO domain names were 805 539 (reference https://www.norid.no/en/aktuelt/2020-et-ar-for-digitale-sjumilssteg/). Updated statistics: https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/nokkeltall/ The .NO domain name registration policy can be found on https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/regelverk-for-no/ Thanks to Hilde Thunem, CEO of NORID for the transfer statistics.. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød At-Large

1 0

Notes and action items - TPR Phase 1 Meeting #06 - 16 June 2021
by Julie Hedlund 16 Jun '21

16 Jun '21

Dear Working Group Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting during ICANN71. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 29 June at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items Please refer to the Work Plan and Action Items List [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FunWaz3g…> for updated action items. 1. Discussion of Policy Goals See the Jamboard at: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1atFQTx8qQbeiWqF1aMdAUkgaVNz7r57COA61nMXvIA4/… Policy Goals Brainstorm: Policy Goals for Previous Policy Development Work: * Enable registered name holders to move their domain names to a new provider, thereby increasing consumer choice and competition; * Ensure the IRTP includes sufficient protections to prevent fraudulent domain name transfers and domain name hijacking; * Clarify the language of the IRTP so that ICANN-accredited registrars consistently interpret and apply the policy; * Clarify the language and visibility of the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy so that providers/panelists consistently interpret and apply the policy. Additional Goals: * DNSSEC transfer has a role in mitigating domain name hijacking. We should clarify this and define guidelines for DNS transfer during registration transfer. * Efficient/ registrant-friendly transfer? Second Goal: -- Question Re: “to prevent fraudulent domain name transfers and domain name hijacking” – are these the same or different? -- Want to prevent bad transfers, but facilitate good ones. -- Maybe remove “and domain name hijacking”? -- One well-known form of fraudulent transfer is slamming, i.e. misleading the customer in order to charge for overpriced services after transfer, but not actually hijack the domain. ACTION ITEM: For the second goal, rewrite to: ““…prevent fraudulent domain name transfers, in particular to prevent the misuse of the transfer mechanism for domain name hijacking”.” Fourth Goal: -- Question: Why is this goal here? Answer: Before the IRTP there was no efficiency. It is better now, but still needs improvement. -- Question: How do we know when we achieve this goal? Answer: We can tie a charter question back to the specific goal. New goal on DNSSEC: -- On DNSSEC, you almost always have to transfer the domain service when you transfer the domain name. How to make this efficient and cost effective. -- I think the positive goal (facilitate valid transfers) is captured in the first green box, so the second box still seems to me to contain redundancy. I propose we remove "and domain name hijacking". -- It’s not clear why DNSSEC should be a goal of this PDP, as it was not something identified in the issues report. Maybe consider it later after we’ve considered other items in our charter? -- It does sound like DNSSEC transfer is more of a technical concern than a policy one. -- Maybe we all should work/establish at “best practice” document after the new IRTP is settled. This “best practice” should obviously include transfers of signed zone. -- There is a country code solution in the Netherlands, but for gTLDs the registry is not involved. Keys have to be available in the new and old locations. There are a variety of reasons for why there is a loss of service during transfer for DNSSEC services. -- Is making DNS service transfers in scope of this PDP? -- Maybe it is important to keep an explicit reference to domain hijacking even if not all fraudulent transfers are hijacking, and not all hijackings are by way of domain transfer. So the phrase could we worded as follows: “prevent fraudulent domain name transfers, in particular to prevent the misuse of the transfer mechanism for domain name hijacking”. -- Issue comes up if you are moving from one registrar to another and also changing the name service. If gaining registrar wants to continue the name service it needs the cooperation of the losing registrar if it is offering the name service. -- Change of registrant might also cause unwanted DNSSEC disruption if the new registrant runs a successor service instead of a new service with the same domain name. -- But, you could change the name service before the registrar transfer, so these could be separate operations. -- From the Registrant point of view it is a concern if DNSSEC implies a disruption in the transfer. Thus, a clear statement needs to be in place when the parties explore the transfer. -- DNSSEC, if implemented correctly, CAN be used as a way to ensure strong authentication that replaces less safe forms of authentication based on email. As a result, removing DNSSEC from the scope would deprive the community of improvements to the transfer process that can only be based on DNSSEC. So it might be good to keep DNSSEC part of the scope, but ensure solutions are available in the absence of DNSSEC too. SUMMARY: This issue (domain name service transfer) is not part of the charter. DNSSEC service transfer is important but we aren’t going to solve it here. CPH TechOps Principles: * The transfer process must comply with current data privacy regulations * The transfer process must be instant, but with enough time to validate the legitimacy of a transfer * A transfer token shall be sufficient to authorize a transfer * No personal data shall be transferred from the old to the new registrar * The existing gTLD transfer policy should be changed as little as possible Second Principle: -- Re: “The transfer process must be instant, but with enough time to validate the legitimacy of a transfer” – note that this is the entire process from beginning to the end. Need to qualify that it should be “as efficient as possible”. -- Seems clear what “instant” means – could change the language to say that the “transfer should be processed” instantly. Update to be more specific. -- Is the “instant transfer” a high-level goal, or is that a piece of a high-level goal. ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the second principle to a high-level goal that the “The transfer shall be processed as efficiently as possible.” Third Principle: -- The principle “A transfer token shall be sufficient to authorize a transfer” is too overreaching. There can be very good reason to say that it is necessary but not sufficient. In particular, a well-organize transfer involves proactive cooperation between gaining and losing registrar, rather than a dangerous event for which the losing registrar is unprepared. If we just forget our old habits for a moment, we can see that allowing a concept of “backup registrar” or “primary sponsoring registrar plus secondary sponsoring registrar” would go a long way to make transfers much more secure. -- This may be too broad. Fourth Principle: -- Re: “No personal data shall be transferred from the old to the new registrar” – not sure we need this. Not sure we need to restrict this. -- Add “Policy shall not require”? Fifth Principle: -- Re: “The existing gTLD transfer policy should be changed as little as possible” – think this one can be removed. -- Originally the goal was to provide as much security and thought without changing the policy a lot. We are here to look at it as a whole and change what is needed. -- Maybe not appropriate for this PDP. 2. Discussion of Charter Topic 4 – AuthInfo Code Management See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPofLQCWIQXz8lT7KEj1HgH3b_obh0… Charter Questions: b1) Is AuthInfo Code still a secure method for inter-registrar transfers? What evidence was used by the Working Group to make this determination? -- Answer to the question is “not today, but it could be”. There are certain security principles that aren’t being protected. -- Compliance is looking for data. But this may not be intuitive to inform the question of how secure AuthInfo code is. So we would need to go to the CPH. -- Wondering if Compliance is looking at how many times TDRP has been used? -- Need to come up with the policy or business definers to for TechOps to consider the questions – or those that are relevant. -- Frame the questions to TechOps in context, such as that the goal of the AuthInfo code is to ensure that the registrant asking for the transfer is the same registrant who owns the domain. -- The data/metrics from ICANN org is of importance. However, there are members of the PDP that have experience - and maybe data, from ccTLD transfers. These data could be handy to have. -- It’s not the amount of complaints that we’re looking for, it’s the amount of unauthorized transfers that have been reversed. -- Distinction for consider: what we are talking about here are the security requirements for the transfer. That the transfer is authorized by the registrant and that the identity is confirmed by the AuthInfo code. Or whether additional security requirements are necessary. But the additional security requirements of the code are what allow the mechanism to achieve the goal – these two security issues should be separate. 1) mechanism, and 2) what to do with the mechanism to achieve the goal. -- Precision is required here for any input we seek from TechOps/CPs. -- The current AuthInfo functions much like a one-time password. It is not fully implemented that way. -- If we move down the path of wanting to depend on the Transfer Authorization Code (TAC), then we need to think carefully about its security requirements. -- So this group may want to keep this in mind when formulating possible future recommendations of things that can be measured and data gathered from CPs to help measure the success of the new policy requirements. -- The goal is to remove the FOAs and using a TAC/AuthCode, and making sure that the registrant asking for the transfer is the registrant authorized to do so. Have to assume that when answering the questions, until that doesn’t work. -- Is there an ask for the CPs coming out of this PDP to gather certain data? -- The available evidence is a leading indicator, but it isn’t definitive. Important to gather that information, but it won’t answer the question. The experts here might be able to answer it or not. -- There have been a lot of changes in the last three years to make the AuthCode more secure, so the data won’t tell the whole story. -- AuthCodes have proved secure in the last three years, but need to ask for the data from TechOps to answer the question. ACTION ITEMS: 1) Once the WG has clarified policy parameters for AuthInfo Codes, staff with the WG to draft letter to CPH TechOps asking for input on a technical solution (or technical solutions) to meet those parameters. 2) Staff with the WG to draft a survey to send to Registrars asking for input and evidence/data regarding the security of AuthInfo Codes. 3. Next Meeting 29 June 2021: The WG will continue discussion on the charter questions at the next meeting, beginning with the following question. B2) The registrar is currently the authoritative holder of the AuthInfo Code. Should this be maintained, or should the registry be the authoritative AuthInfo Code holder? Why? As a starting point, the CPH Tech Ops Group concluded “to reach a uniform, transparent, and predictable process, Registries should be in control of the storage and processing of the AuthCode, regarding the technical part.”

1 0

(apologies, resending to corrected list) Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 16:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 09 Jun '21

09 Jun '21

NOTE: The next time the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG meets will be during ICANN71: 16 June 2021 @ 12:30 UTC [71.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/MRRdeaFX8…>. Registration is compulsory to access the ICANN71 meeting schedule. Information can be found on this page [events.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/events.icann.org/ICANNEventsPortal/icann…> **************************************************** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/VwTpCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5k3u34hf [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5k3u34hf__;!!PtGJab4!ukWZuIg…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Panelists and Attendees when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Please rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0