March 2023 - GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

Deadline Extended to 18 April 2023 - Request for Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
by Emily Barabas March 30, 2023

March 30, 2023

Dear WG members, In response to requests for additional time, the deadline for SO/AC/SG/Cs to provide early written input on “group 2” charter questions has been extended to 18 April. Messages about this extension will go out soon to the SO/AC/SG/C leaders. While groups will have more time to provide written input, deliberations on TEAC and TDRP will continue to progress in the WG. To help support fruitful deliberations in the coming weeks, please continue to coordinate with the SO/AC/SG/C you represent and raise positions/views on behalf of your group in the upcoming working group discussions. Please feel free to reach out on list with any questions. Kind regards, Julie, Caitlin, Berry and Emily on behalf of Roger Carney, WG Chair Emily Barabas Policy Development Support Senior Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 28 March 2023
by Julie Bisland March 28, 2023

March 28, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/6oLKDQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, and chat.) * Transcript As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call as a Panelist, observers can join as an Attendee to listen. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/P4aUCQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 04 April 2023
by Julie Bisland March 28, 2023

March 28, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 04 April 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 <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 <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/7ILKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/3yc5unr3 ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Staff will promote members and alternates to panelist once joined. * Chat: Please select Everyone so everyone can see your chat, and so it’s captured in the recording. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. * Alternate assignments 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): Rename your line by adding 3 Zs (zzz) before your name and add, your affiliation - alternate after your name. * 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

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #84 - 28 March at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 28, 2023

March 28, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 04 April at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: WG members should share any observations/feedback from ICANN76 on the WG email distribution list. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #84 Proposed Agenda 28 March 2023 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates * Reminder -- The deadline for early input from SO/AC/SG/Cs on group 2 topics is Tuesday 4 April. * Project Plan – No open action items at this time. Note that we are still anticipating to stick with TEAC/TDRP/transfer reversal for about 2 more months. 3. Continuation of Gap Analysis Discussion – Transfer Reversal (working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Mq-Zu-fTdu4x…>) Sarah Wyld: Comments about what an undo process could look like – a lighter weight process that is secure and appropriate: * Purpose – we need something that could resolve the problem, not just a communication channel (TEAC). * Need the registrars to work together to resolve the problem: * Direct resolution between registrars. * Notification by Losing to Gaining Rr of problem * Gaining Rr returns NS to pre-transfer settings (provided by Losing Rr in step 1) * Interaction to confirm that the transfer was invalid, maybe including evidence * Requirement for Gaining Registrar to respond within specific time period, like TEAC, with Registry returning domain if no response * If both Rrs agree, Ry returns domain to Losing (pre-transfer) Registrar and reverses related fees * Optional escalation to third-party TDRP if not resolved here Discussion: * Need to suggest time period – what happens if not resolved and by when. * Suggestion to back up to purpose and use: * Need something faster and less costly than TDRP. * Consider timelines. * Consider how this would specifically be used. * Is this a formalization of what registrars are already doing? Could have a process that the domain owner even could invoke, and the point of contact could be the TEAC. * Concern if this procedure was used for non-emergencies – more than the TEAC is used – what would happen if this was disputed? How could a new registrant (or losing registrant) participate? * The registrants (losing and gaining) are both reliant on the registrar. * Concern that the registrant may not even be informed of the attempt to pull back the transfer. * How do you get to the point of addressing the participation of gaining or losing registrants? * Sounds like we need to keep the concept of the contact for emergencies separate. * Is it better for the registrant to not have a process? Can the registrant participate in the TDRP (without the registrar)? Need a non-emergency resolution process either way. * There is a big difference between this process and the current procedure – that if the registrar doesn’t respond the registry returns the domain – and the registrant doesn’t have any way of knowing that the transfer has been reversed. How to address notification? Does that also include notification to the new registrant? * Not sure why there is so much concern about returning the domain due to a non-response – doesn’t that already happen? * Not a concern now since the procedure is seldom used – we assume this new procedure would be used much more frequently. What happens if a legitimate transfer is reversed? What is the registrant’s recourse to dispute the transfer reversal? * The current TEAC system of a response in 4 hours is definitely gamed – need to make sure that any new reversal process can’t be gamed. Also have to be careful that a RNH couldn’t inappropriately challenge a transfer. * There are no express obligations for a registrar to advocate for a RNH. There also are limitations on an RNH’s ability to sue in the case of an illegitimate transfer. * For a procedures like this to work fairly it would need direct participation by the registrant – could need a registrant initiated transfer dispute mechanism. * If in step #4, the registrar doesn’t respond does this go instead to a TDRP – would that be better? (Jumps to step #6)? * If the TDRP is automatically a next step, who would pay for it? * Courts are where these types of disputes should take place. Unless there is a clear meeting of the minds, the status quo should prevail. * As a general principle if we are struggling to say what role the transfer policy is supposed to be then we should take the minimalist approach – just to resolve an egregious and obviously fraudulent transfer. Leave the status quo as an informal process. * Should probably err on the side of the losing registrant. * If the registrars don’t agree then they go to a TDRP. * There are two equal perspectives – the former owner or the new owner. This is not a new issue, but we need not resolve it. * Could we say this process can’t be used if money is changing hands? If the transfer is due to an illegitimate transfer (a hijack, etc.) it would go through a different process? * If it is an agreed-upon resolution between registrars there’s no need for a new process – we can stay with the status quo. * Nice to formalize what is occurring today. Other comments from Sarah: Time Period: Maybe only within the 30-day lock period, and if outside that time it must be a TDRP? Urgency: Any Potential Limitations Raised by WG Members: Liability concerns for both Registrars (can they be indemnified? I understand this is a significant hurdle for TDRP) Discussion: * 30-day lock would be irrelevant as there is no pull back – if we were to codify the procedure it should be able to invoked at any time (no lock). * Commencement of the process could occasion a lock. * The outcome for failure to respond shouldn’t be an automatic transfer – should go to step #6, TDRP. * Could be a transfer prohibited until the transfer dispute is resolved. * Is the TDRP the right escalation point? The policy could be followed exactly but could still be an illegitimate transfer. * WG could make a recommendation that there could be a registrant-initiated TDRP for fraudulently transferred domains. * Isn’t returning the domain name to the losing registrar different from ServerTransferProhibited, which is a freeze until the dispute is resolved. 4. AOB

1 0

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 28 March 2023
by Julie Bisland March 28, 2023

March 28, 2023

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 <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 <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/6oLKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/2p95cn6r <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2p95cn6r__;!!PtGJab4!9NtWnsR…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Staff will promote members and alternates to panelist once joined. * Chat: Please select Everyone so everyone can see your chat, and so it’s captured in the recording. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. * Alternate assignments 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): Rename your line by adding 3 Zs (zzz) before your name and add, your affiliation - alternate after your name. * 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

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 28 March 2023
by Devan Reed March 27, 2023

March 27, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 <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 <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/6oLKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/2p95cn6r <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2p95cn6r__;!!PtGJab4!9NtWnsR…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Staff will promote members and alternates to panelist once joined. * Chat: Please select Everyone so everyone can see your chat, and so it’s captured in the recording. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. * Alternate assignments 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): Rename your line by adding 3 Zs (zzz) before your name and add, your affiliation - alternate after your name. * 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

Proposed agenda for meeting #84 on Tuesday 28 March 2023 at 16:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas March 27, 2023

March 27, 2023

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 28 March at 16:00 UTC. Before the meeting, WG members are kindly asked to review the latest version of the Gap Analysis with inputs from Sarah (here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mq-Zu-fTdu4xrI1h1YPB1ITGRTxAp2gKzef7cTk…>) as well as Recommendation 27, Wave 1 Items Related to TEAC and TDRP (see pages 53, 55, and 56 of the Final Issue Report here<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-iss…>). Kind regards, Caitlin, Berry, Julie, and Emily Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #84 Proposed Agenda 28 March 2023 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates 3. Continuation of Gap Analysis Discussion – Transfer Reversal (working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mq-Zu-fTdu4xrI1h1YPB1ITGRTxAp2gKzef7cTk…>) 4. Time permitting – Recommendation 27, Wave 1 Items Related to TEAC and TDRP (Transfer Policy Item 4 and TDRP Items 1-5, see pages 53, 55, and 56 of the Final Issue Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-iss…>) 5. AOB

1 0

Gap Analysis
by Sarah Wyld March 17, 2023

March 17, 2023

Hello All, I hope everyone who is travelling home from Cancun has safe and smooth travels, and those of us who remained at home have good weather for the weekend! As we discussed at one of our meetings, I have provided some suggestions in the Transfer Reversal Gap Analysis doc outlining a potential process for registrars to interact and resolve a transfer dispute between themselves. I hope this is a good basis for discussion when we resume meeting. Thank you! -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com

1 0

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting ICANN76 Session 2 - 12 March at 10:30 EST
by Julie Hedlund March 12, 2023

March 12, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please refer to the recording and transcript for the formal record of the meeting. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 28 March at 16:00 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ***The action items and notes are not meant to reflect a transcription of the meeting – refer to the recording and transcript for a formal record of the meeting*** ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: WG members to take the issues raised by George Kirikos back to their groups for consideration. Notes: Transfer Policy Review – ICANN76 Session 2 Proposed Agenda 12 March 2023 1. Introduction Issues raised by George Kirikos: 1. Length of limitation period of 12 months – shorten period where all parties are aware of the issue; unauthorized or disputed ownership, this limitation should be longer, but not sure if 12 months is correct. Should pay more attention to the change of registrant procedure. TDRP isn’t suited for a change of ownership dispute. 2. Bug in TDRP – When the Temp Spec was put in place the Losing Registrar can win 100 percent of the TDRP disputes because the Gaining Registrar doesn’t have access to the Whois info for the FOA (because of GDPR). Gaining registrars are not collecting the FOA any longer because of the redactions in data of the Whois, so everything's based on the Auth Info code. See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en (current TDRP, look at 3.2.4(ii) as that is a problem!). The dispute resolution panel shall find that the transfer should be reversed. Specifically: “If the Gaining Registrar is unable to provide a complete FOA with data matching that contained within the authoritative Whois database at the time of the transfer request, then the Dispute Resolution Panel shall find that the transfer should be reversed.” 3. Long registration period creating confusion with ownership of the domain name in case of an invalid transfer – see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser -- performing due diligence due to GDRP and lack of access to data/Whois history on ownership. See 3.2.4.vi in the policy – “Transfers from a Gaining Registrar to a third registrar, and all other subsequent transfers, are invalid if the Gaining Registrar acquired sponsorship of the domain name(s) at issue through an Invalid Transfer, as determined through the dispute resolution process set forth in this Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy.” Discussion: - Might be a good data point, and that would be something trackable at the registry but what would bemopaque to a registry might be a change of registrants and how many times an event like that may have occurred within a registrar. Those might be helpful data attributes for a gaining registrar to make an informed decision about accepting a domain name. So that you'd have a better indication, and even some statistics, to know how big or small this is as an issue. We had some challenges in understanding how often the transfer dispute resolution policy comes into effect when things are sort of sorted out between registrars. This might be helpful data to be collecting or gathering as part of this process. Help us make more informed decisions. - The issue is that TDRP is taking up a position on who should be the rightful owner of the domain name, which might be inconsistent with what the actual law is, and it might be better just to leave it at the law and collect good evidence and make those ownership transfers far more transparent instead of opaque. - Seems like this was written as an anti-money laundering rule. ACTION ITEM: WG members to take the issues raised by George Kirikos back to their groups for consideration. 2. Gap Analysis - Reversal of Inter-Registrar Transfers Here is a link to the gap analysis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mq-Zu-fTdu4xrI1h1YPB1ITGRTxAp2gKzef7cTk… Discussion: * TEAC – Issue of the very short time to respond (4 hours): Thought given for accommodating boutique registrars. Discussed in our regular weekly meetings that it creates a high barrier for smaller registrars. Suggested changing to 24 hours. Also nothing about the time frame for resolution. * TEAC – No real definition of what constitutes an emergency. It could be help if we could frame the terms for when it can be used. How can it be an emergency if it isn’t invoked until 12 months later? * TEAC – Time frame for resolution – no requirements. Note that if there isn’t agree to change the policy the status quo (current policy) prevails. * TEAC – Losing registrar doesn’t face the loss of accreditation – what happens if you don’t respond in time to the TEAC? Both Transfer Policy and TDRP mention that there could be penalties, but the details aren’t described. * TEAC/TDRP – Used very seldom; that could change if they are used more. But the argument to not change them could be because they aren’t used. * TEAC – Suggested that TEAC process could go through the NSP – Naming Services Portal. Registries would prefer that for tracking and transparency. Would require changes at the NSP. * TDRP – Think about lighter weight processes that could kick in. * TEAC – Not a resolution mechanism – it is a contact point. Need a light weight resolution mechanism. * TDRP – There are registrars who have never used the TDRP. Realize that the landscape has changed since the IRTP. * Make sure to not open new gaps if we recommend changes. * Important to consider the locking periods when we consider time frames. Need to be thinking that there is certainty of title and dependencies. * Look at roll back to the prior DNS – comments? * This idea of rolling back the DNS – by the gaining registrar? The registry would change back their DNS to the Losing Registrar. Sounds easier in practice than it would be. Deserves further study. More complicated if DNSSEC is involved. * Settlements between registrars being done on a case-by-case basis – need to keep that flexibility. * Need to be careful with this – what is the recourse if you get it wrong? Who has the responsibility to correct this? Could use the courts, but parties have to post a security bond, which could be a barrier. Informal method might work better. * Does the WG agree that there should be a transfer reversal policy separate from the TDRP – if so we should fill out the charge (link above). If there are enough missing pieces (gaps) then the WG should think about whether this requires new policy. * The unmet need might be where the registrar doesn’t want to represent the registrant in a dispute. WG will have to consider how far they want to pursue that – even if just making a recommendation to Council that someone should look at it. * Consider all of the reasons that the IRTP didn’t move forward on the ETRP – WG should look at the issues the IRTP encountered before and how things might be different now. Here is the presentation with background on the ETRP and the reasons it did not move forward: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/222268453/TEAC%20%2B%20TDR… * Could recommend that the GNSO could look at in future (indemnification) -- lots of gaining registrars are hesitant to reverse transfers informally where the circumstances are murky because they often get the short end of the stick in terms of liability. 3. Closing

1 0

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting ICANN76 Session 1 - 11 March at 0900 EST
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2023

March 11, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. Please refer to the recording and transcript for the formal record of the meeting. The next meeting will be at ICANN76 with remote access: Session 2: Sunday, 12 March at 10:30-12:00 Cancun (UTC-5) 15:30 UTC Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ***The action items and notes are not meant to reflect a transcription of the meeting – refer to the recording and transcript for a formal record of the meeting*** ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: None captured. Notes: Transfer Policy Review – ICANN76 Session 1 Proposed Agenda 11 March 2023 1. Introduction to the PDP and current topics under discussion What is the Transfer Policy? ICANN consensus policy governing the procedure and requirements for registrants to transfer their domain names from one registrar to another. * Goal: Enhanced domain name portability * greater consumer and business choice * registrants may select the registrar that offers the best services and price for their needs * Went into effect on 12 November 2004 * GNSO reviewed the policy once before, shortly after implementation Issue Areas for the PDP Charter Topics: Group 1(a): * Form of Authorization (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 FOA issues) * AuthInfo Codes * Denying (NACKing) Transfers Group 1(b): * Change of Registrant (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 Change of Registrant issues) Group 2: * Transfer Emergency Action Contact * Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 TDRP issues) * Reversing transfers * ICANN-approved transfers Status * Project plan originally anticipated a phased approach to the work, with deliverables for each phase. * Working Group produced a Phase 1A Initial Report, revised recommendations following public comment on the report, and conducted preliminary deliberations on Phase 1B topics. * Project plan was revised to account for newly-found dependencies between topics. The group has consolidated work into a single phase, with an additional Initial Report planned covering all topics and a single Final Report. * Discussion of Phase 2 (now Group 2) topics began in February 2023. * The working group will return to Group 1 topics after developing preliminary outputs on Group 2 topics to ensure that any dependencies are taken into account. Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) Registrars must establish a Transfer Emergency Action Contact ("TEAC") for urgent communications relating to transfers. (Transfer Policy, Section I.4.6) * May be designated as a telephone number or some other real-time communication channel (Sec. I.4.6.1) * Must generate a non-automated response by a human representative of the Gaining Registrar (Sec. I.4.6.2) * Responses are required within 4 hours, although ﬁnal resolution of the incident may take longer. (Sec. I.4.6.3) * Channel is reserved for Rrs, Rys, and ICANN org (Sec. I.4.6.2) * Records of communications for this channel must be retained and documentation must be shared with ICANN and Rys upon request Original Objectives of TEAC * 24 x 7 x 365 access to registrar technical support staff for emergencies * Quickly reverse instances of domain name hijacking or transfer errors * Ensure registrar representative is empowered to take action on TEAC requests * Policy violation for non-responsive registrars Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) * Designed for cases of invalid inter-registrar transfers, where registrars are unable to resolve the issue amongst themselves * Must be filed by Registrar (not Rt) within 12 months of invalid transfer (TDRP Sec. 2.2) * Decided by independent panelist(s) appointed by the Provider (TDRP, Sec. 1.3) * Complainant must pay fee to file a TDRP (may be transferred to respondent in some instances) (TDRP, Sec. 3.3) * Documentation of improper transfer is required (TDRP, Sec. 3.1, 3.2) Update on Action Items for Staff: Staff to research whether there are materials describing the goals of the TDRP. * Regarding goals of the TDRP, here’s recommendation 26 from the 2003 Task Force Final Report: 26. That Registrars have access to a suitable process(es) by which they can dispute any specific transfers that they might object to after the fact (i.e. – a dispute resolution processes as outlined in the Reference Implementation described elsewhere in this report). And that such processes specifically include provisions that fulfill the following requirements. . . * And here is an excerpt from the IRTP D Final Report about whether registrants should have direct access to file TDRP disputes: The Working Group discussed the issue of allowing registrants to initiate a TDRP, spending a significant amount of time on this issue. The Group went so far as to form a sub-team that drafted an amended version of the TDRP, which would allow for registrants to be able to initiate the process themselves. As part of its discussion, the Group developed a list of use cases that included scenarios under which registrants might initiate a transfer dispute (see Annex C). * However, the WG decided eventually that the TDRP should not include dispute resolution options for registrants. Specifically, the WG was concerned that adding a new class of parties to an already complex and technical process would overload it. The WG also found it difficult to imagine how a ‘loser-pays’ TDRP cost-recovery scheme would work in situations where the dispute was between a legitimate registrant and a criminal. Therefore, it is preferable to create separate inter-registrant and inter-registrar transfer dispute-resolution processes and not to open the IRTP to registrant disputes. https://archive.icann.org/en/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm IRTP WG D Final Report for reference: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_46639/irtp-d-final-25s… 2. Discussion of Charter Questions [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1i6tLO_qbSa-a…> related to the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) Poll (Continued from 07 March): Revised Q3: What do you believe is the main factor that results in the low number of TDRP filings? 1. Cost of filing a TDRP complaint (loser pays model) - 0% 2. Registrars work out the issue amongst themselves and do not resort to filing a TDRP – 13% 3. Length of time between filing and panel decision – 6% 4. All of the above – 56% 5. Not sure/no answer – 25% 6. Other – 0% Discussion/Results: * One contributing factor to the TDRP not being used that much is because the registrant can’t be a party to the complaint, although the registrar can do it for them. Q6. Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? 1. Yes – 37% 2. No – 5% 3. Not sure/no answer – 58% Discussion/Results: * Looking at something that fits well but needs some adjustment. * These polling questions aren’t a vote, but a way to test the temperature in the room and a way to start considering the charter questions. Also let staff know if there is information staff should be gathering to help consider the questions. Q7. Based on the WG’s discussion to date, do you believe additional mechanisms (other than TEAC or TDRP) may be necessary to resolve improper transfers? 1. Yes – 55% 2. No – 18% 3. Not sure/no answer – 27% Discussion/Results: * Opportunity to make some improvements or to fill in the gap with something else. Charter Questions: See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i6tLO_qbSa-ace0BnKaAn7voP1UA1RjYlrRo2Zn… g1) Is there enough information available to determine if the TDRP is an effective mechanism for resolving disputes between registrars in cases of alleged violations of the IRTP? If not, what additional information is needed to make this determination? Discussion: * Limited data available. * Why there are so few cases – hard to say. Some factors are cost, informal resolution, time it takes – and that registrar must file through a registrar. * Need further fleshing out -- there was no clear agreement about whether additional reporting requirements may be appropriate. * Should the dispute settlements between registrars be tracked? Could be a reason for the low numbers of the use of the TDRP. * Working Group members are encouraged to share any data they might have. g2) The ADNDRC reported to the IRTP Part D Working Group that in some of the cases it processed, appellees and appellants failed to provide sufficient information to support arbitration. Is this an issue that needs to be examined further in the context of the policy? i. Are the existing informational materials about the TDRP sufficient to ensure that registrars understand the process and the requirements for filing a dispute, including the information they need to give to the dispute resolution provider? Discussion: * No extensive discussion of this question yet by the Working Group. * Some requirements coming out of the IRTP. * This is an important question – whether more information is needed. * <COMMENT>This issue is related to the "change of registrant" issue. If the change of registrant process was more secure, there'd be fewer transfer disputes. That's why it's disappointing that the "push" mechanism I proposed in my public comments was not adopted by the working group, even as a parallel process to what exists now, for those who want it.</COMMENT> * We will get back to change of registrant issues after we finish up with the dispute mechanisms. g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered? Discussion: * Probably can’t answer this question until we finish discussions on TDRP. * From the polling questions general sentiment was that changes were needed but not sure what. * Different levels of effectiveness. * Very few cases that have gone through the system. * There is the question about what is the problem we are trying to solve. * Focus areas: reducing the cost might reduce barriers to entry; introducing formality, such as accreditation; whether registrants are getting what they need – what current channels are available – settlement, courts (costly), through registrar (TDRP); some discussion of whether you can adjust the TDRP to accommodate registrants – but agreed that that would require either substantial changes or a new separate system. * Talk about gaming or potential gaming is TDRP is available to registrants – could be adjusted for that. * Big question: this WG is focusing and the TDRP as a policy – looking at issues of transfers between contracted parties, so disputes among registrants could be out of scope. Need to make sure we are staying within scope. * Even if out of scope the WG could make a recommendation to Council that a process for registrants could be considered separately. g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? g5) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization? Additional areas of discussion: Statute of limitations: Is 12 months from the date of the alleged improper transfer an acceptable deadline to file a TDRP complaint? Discussion: * The polling questions covered g4 and g5. Working Group members should review Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy for additional context on these questions. * Question addressed in the polling but not in the charter questions – limitation on the time to file: IRTP extended from 6 to 12 months. In the polling some WG members thought it should be shorter, some longer, some thought it was okay. So no clear direction for change. * This is where gaming came up – once you set a data people will try to game. 3. Closing

1 0