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

CLARIFICATION RE: Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #87 - 18 April at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2023

April 18, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please see the clarification for Action Item 1 below that proposals are due by COB Monday, 24 April for consideration at Tuesday’s meeting. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 1. Interested supporting registrars should provide a proposal in writing for a fast/gap undo in between the informal process and the TDRP/courts by COB next Monday, 24 April. 2. Ongoing -- Small Team to develop a proposal/language to codify the informal transfer resolution process is continuing its work. Volunteers: Jody Kolker, Rich Brown, Owen Smigelski Juan Manuel Rojas, Zak Muscovitch and Jothan Frakes. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #87 Proposed Agenda 18 April 2023 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates * Reminder to WG members about the deadline for early input and that they are responsible for reading all the comments. * Small Team looking at codifying the current informal transfer dispute resolution process is meeting later today; reminder that the small team is expected to be short lived and focused only on codifying existing process. * Project Workplan: One open action item to start up the Small Team – close that off today; focus on fast undo in the gap analysis document; then back to TEAC/TDRP charter questions and early input – but everyone should also be reading the input, and those whose groups provided input should speak up as it is addressed. Aiming to finish up by ICANN77. 3. Continuation of Gap Analysis Discussion – Focus on Fast Undo (see section I.C. of the working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Mq-Zu-fTdu4x…>) I.C. Additional Element for consideration: Fast Undo Introduction: * Fast undo is not new – it was introduced as a proposal during the IRTP discussions, but was rejected. * Has anything changed to make it more suitable? * Give everyone who has a perspective on this has a chance to speak to it. Early Input: * Rick Wilhelm, RySG: SAC007 on hijacking; fast undo was brought to solve a problem that is very different today; skeptical that we can come up with something that doesn’t have the downsides that the previous proposal had. * Zak Muscovitch, BC: TEAC came out from IRTP B Final Report – ETRP was under consideration that was rejected. “The dangers of a “quick undo” have been extensively canvassed previously and there is no practical solution beyond what current exists.” Discussion: * Question: Are we thinking about moving the reversal from a non-TEAC situation? Answer: It’s beyond a DNS reversal – it is getting a domain back into the original registrant’s hands from the new registrant; it may not be TEAC initiated, it is beyond that. * There have been some changes since then in new technology, but the question is whether we want to go down that rabbit hole? * Hijacking still occurs but probably isn’t as relevant. And we do have a fast undo as part of the TEAC --- if the gaining registrar doesn’t respond the registrant can request that the name should be transferred back. * For those interested in understanding more of the history, the original proposal for Fast Undo (Expedited Transfer Reversal Procedure) appears in the IRTP WB B Initial Report (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_12531/irtp-b-initial-r…) After substantial public comments were critical of this proposal, the WG put out a Proposed Final Report with questions for the community (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_22303/irtp-b-proposed-…) and ultimately recommended the TEAC in its Final Report. For those advocating for a fast undo, we would recommend you familiarize yourselves with the previously-noted pitfalls and criticisms so that we avoid rehashing these conversations. * We need a reversal process but not sure it needs to be fast. We’ve agreed to a Small Team to codifying the informal reversal process, don’t think it makes sense to look at ETRP and I feel like we’ve decided not to look at a fast undo. * TDRP is technically a reversal process, but maybe we are talking about something in between – everyone agrees and TDRP. On “automatic” reversal becomes a concern. * Note the Small Team is focusing on the friendly path to a reversal. * Either they come to agreement or someone is not responding – this discussion is whether there is something in between. * In the case of a gaining registrar not responding the losing registrar can go to ICANN Compliance. The Small Team is only looking at the friendly resolution, not if the gaining registrar is non-responsive. * We are trying to define is the solution of undoing the transfer. * Small Team should suggest a timeframe for response – a week would be good. * Timeline could be multi-factor. * If the happy path is no longer happy, we move on to something else. * A codification of the informal process would not contain a trigger to compliance because the current process doesn’t. It would be a variance. The Small Team could discuss it. * What we need to focus on – don’t hear an appetite for an automatic undo of a transfer outside of the codification of the “happy path”, and the TEAC/courts. Informal poll: * If you support an undo process between the informal process and TDRP/court order: 10 * If you do not support: 4 (3 with 1 alternate) * Could be a need for a registrant-initiated dispute process. * Think what we are hearing is a break-glass situation – whatever we do it seems we need an emergency solution. * Seems like the emergency thinks need time to work out and the fast undo doesn’t allow that. * When we think about this, it would mean disagreement or non-response – if a disagreement then it’s a dispute process. * It’s a dispute between registrants. * There’s not going to be consensus on fast undo. * Maybe a rollback would be better. * If they aren’t agreeing that falls out of what the Small Team is working on. * According to the poll there is support for a fast undo process between the Small Team codification of the informal process and the TDRP/courts. We need proposals from those supporters. Any proposal should address how to manage the pain points. ACTION ITEM: Interested supporting registrars should provide a proposal in writing for a fast/gap undo in between the informal process and the TDRP/courts by next Tuesday, 25 April. 4. AOB

1 0

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #87 - 18 April at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2023

April 18, 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, 25 April at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 1. Interested supporting registrars should provide a proposal in writing for a fast/gap undo in between the informal process and the TDRP/courts by next Tuesday, 25 April. 2. Ongoing -- Small Team to develop a proposal/language to codify the informal transfer resolution process is continuing its work. Volunteers: Jody Kolker, Rich Brown, Owen Smigelski Juan Manuel Rojas, Zak Muscovitch and Jothan Frakes. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #87 Proposed Agenda 18 April 2023 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates * Reminder to WG members about the deadline for early input and that they are responsible for reading all the comments. * Small Team looking at codifying the current informal transfer dispute resolution process is meeting later today; reminder that the small team is expected to be short lived and focused only on codifying existing process. * Project Workplan: One open action item to start up the Small Team – close that off today; focus on fast undo in the gap analysis document; then back to TEAC/TDRP charter questions and early input – but everyone should also be reading the input, and those whose groups provided input should speak up as it is addressed. Aiming to finish up by ICANN77. 3. Continuation of Gap Analysis Discussion – Focus on Fast Undo (see section I.C. of the working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Mq-Zu-fTdu4x…>) I.C. Additional Element for consideration: Fast Undo Introduction: * Fast undo is not new – it was introduced as a proposal during the IRTP discussions, but was rejected. * Has anything changed to make it more suitable? * Give everyone who has a perspective on this has a chance to speak to it. Early Input: * Rick Wilhelm, RySG: SAC007 on hijacking; fast undo was brought to solve a problem that is very different today; skeptical that we can come up with something that doesn’t have the downsides that the previous proposal had. * Zak Muscovitch, BC: TEAC came out from IRTP B Final Report – ETRP was under consideration that was rejected. “The dangers of a “quick undo” have been extensively canvassed previously and there is no practical solution beyond what current exists.” Discussion: * Question: Are we thinking about moving the reversal from a non-TEAC situation? Answer: It’s beyond a DNS reversal – it is getting a domain back into the original registrant’s hands from the new registrant; it may not be TEAC initiated, it is beyond that. * There have been some changes since then in new technology, but the question is whether we want to go down that rabbit hole? * Hijacking still occurs but probably isn’t as relevant. And we do have a fast undo as part of the TEAC --- if the gaining registrar doesn’t respond the registrant can request that the name should be transferred back. * For those interested in understanding more of the history, the original proposal for Fast Undo (Expedited Transfer Reversal Procedure) appears in the IRTP WB B Initial Report (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_12531/irtp-b-initial-r…) After substantial public comments were critical of this proposal, the WG put out a Proposed Final Report with questions for the community (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_22303/irtp-b-proposed-…) and ultimately recommended the TEAC in its Final Report. For those advocating for a fast undo, we would recommend you familiarize yourselves with the previously-noted pitfalls and criticisms so that we avoid rehashing these conversations. * We need a reversal process but not sure it needs to be fast. We’ve agreed to a Small Team to codifying the informal reversal process, don’t think it makes sense to look at ETRP and I feel like we’ve decided not to look at a fast undo. * TDRP is technically a reversal process, but maybe we are talking about something in between – everyone agrees and TDRP. On “automatic” reversal becomes a concern. * Note the Small Team is focusing on the friendly path to a reversal. * Either they come to agreement or someone is not responding – this discussion is whether there is something in between. * In the case of a gaining registrar not responding the losing registrar can go to ICANN Compliance. The Small Team is only looking at the friendly resolution, not if the gaining registrar is non-responsive. * We are trying to define is the solution of undoing the transfer. * Small Team should suggest a timeframe for response – a week would be good. * Timeline could be multi-factor. * If the happy path is no longer happy, we move on to something else. * A codification of the informal process would not contain a trigger to compliance because the current process doesn’t. It would be a variance. The Small Team could discuss it. * What we need to focus on – don’t hear an appetite for an automatic undo of a transfer outside of the codification of the “happy path”, and the TEAC/courts. Informal poll: * If you support an undo process between the informal process and TDRP/court order: 10 * If you do not support: 4 (3 with 1 alternate) * Could be a need for a registrant-initiated dispute process. * Think what we are hearing is a break-glass situation – whatever we do it seems we need an emergency solution. * Seems like the emergency thinks need time to work out and the fast undo doesn’t allow that. * When we think about this, it would mean disagreement or non-response – if a disagreement then it’s a dispute process. * It’s a dispute between registrants. * There’s not going to be consensus on fast undo. * Maybe a rollback would be better. * If they aren’t agreeing that falls out of what the Small Team is working on. * According to the poll there is support for a fast undo process between the Small Team codification of the informal process and the TDRP/courts. We need proposals from those supporters. Any proposal should address how to manage the pain points. ACTION ITEM: Interested supporting registrars should provide a proposal in writing for a fast/gap undo in between the informal process and the TDRP/courts by next Tuesday, 25 April. 4. AOB

1 0

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 18 April 2023
by Julie Bisland April 18, 2023

April 18, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/8YLKDQ> (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 * Agenda and Notes/Action Items 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, 25 April 2023
by Julie Bisland April 18, 2023

April 18, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 25 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/84LKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/jekr9bk5 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

**10-minute reminder** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 18 April 2023
by Julie Bisland April 18, 2023

April 18, 2023

**10-minute reminder** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 18 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/8YLKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/2tztvfuz [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2tztvfuz__;!!PtGJab4!5-gm9R6…> 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, 18 April 2023
by Devan Reed April 17, 2023

April 17, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 18 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/8YLKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/2tztvfuz [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2tztvfuz__;!!PtGJab4!5-gm9R6…> 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 #87 on Tuesday 18 April 2023 at 16:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas April 14, 2023

April 14, 2023

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 18 April at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Caitlin, Berry, Julie, and Emily Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #87 Proposed Agenda 18 April 2023 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates 3. Continuation of Gap Analysis Discussion – Focus on Fast Undo (see section I.C. of the working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Mq-Zu-fTdu4x…>) 4. AOB

1 0

Seeking Volunteers: Small team on codifying informal resolution
by Emily Barabas April 11, 2023

April 11, 2023

Dear WG members, As captured in the notes below, a TPR small team is forming to create a proposal for codifying the process to resolve transfer issues where both registrars can agree to a solution. So far, our small team volunteers are: Jody Kolker, Rich Brown, Owen Smigelski, Juan Manuel Rojas, Zak Muscovitch and Jothan Frakes. If you would like to join this group, please respond on list. Thanks, Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily From: GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 20:17 To: "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #86 - 11 April at 1600 UTC Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 18 April at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: Staff to initiate a small team to develop a proposal/language to codify the informal transfer resolution process. Volunteers on the call: Jody Kolker, Rich Brown, Owen Smigelski Juan Manuel Rojas, Zak Muscovitch and Jothan Frakes. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #86 Proposed Agenda 11 April 2023 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates * Project Workplan: Reminder that early input on Phase 2 topics is due on week from today (18 April). No open action items. Hoping to wrap up TEAC/TDRP by ICANN77. 3. Update – Issue Identified at ICANN76 regarding TDRP Section 3.2.4(ii) * Issue raised by George Kirikos was that if the Gaining Registrar couldn’t provide the Gaining FOA, that could be grounds to reverse the transfer. Can’t currently provide the FOA due to GDRP. * Now an explanatory banner noting that not providing the Gaining FOA cannot be grounds for reversal of a transfer. 4. Visual Overview of TEAC, Informal Resolution, and TDRP * See attached document. Notes: * TEAC is just an expedited response to an informal process. * If registrar don’t agree an option could be to file a TDRP, but this is a lengthy and expensive process, so that may be why it’s rarely used. * Other options if registrars still disagree are ICANN Compliance and the courts. * The informal resolution without the TEAC is the focus of our gap analysis. Discussion: * Page 1 – missing is what happens if Gaining Registrar doesn’t make contact within 4 hours per TEAC – ICANN Compliance option. * Question: Are there policies that the registrar has to respond if the registrant asks to start a TEAC? Courts may not be an easy path. Answer: The registrar today is the one responsible to initiating the TEAC contact in a transfer dispute. High 99 percent of the time the registrar is responding to a registrant, but there is no policy obligation to do so. 5. 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…>) I. Codify Informal Resolution * Jothan Frakes: Add “Reversion of Name Servers for the domain name in focus” under “Codify Informal Resolution”: We haven't necessarily sounded this out, but in about 50% of the times I have been in the chain or worker on a TEAC-type contact, the DNS reversion sorted out the matter and reversion was not needed. * Roger: We will cover that next. Spent two weeks on this section. Make sure the groups come together and are making statements as a group. * Staff recap of Part 1: There was some support and some opposition for creating a process around the steps involved in informal resolution, and only where specific actions apply. Some thought this would create transparency and better metrics, others had concerns about burdens for non-compliance and gaming. Also seems to be creating a form of TDRP, so duplicative and burdensome. Invite advocates to volunteer to put pen to paper. DNS Reversion: * From Jothan Frakes: Gaining Registrar: Large corporation buys a domain for marketing campaign, staff transfer to a new registrar in the midst of the campaign – resolution was to revert the name servers to the previous domain. So, wasn’t a transfer dispute but originated there. DNS reversion solved the problem. * Roger: May have originated in the dispute process, but doesn’t seem to fall in this section, which is focused on whether and how to codify informal resolution. * Rick Wilhelm: Not really a transfer dispute, more that my domain name is broken. Informal Poll: In favor or not to codify the informal process (hands up) * Note: Registries are not opposed to codifying, unless and until new requirements are placed on Registries. * To formalize, we may need to form a small group to work on this. * Codification is a better word here than formalization, as the latter could suggest adding requirements to the current informal process. In favor: 7 Not in favor: 0 I.A. Additional Element for consideration: DNS Reversal Discussion: * Recognition that if we do something it could do impact DNSSEC, but we aren’t here to suggest solutions, but could acknowledge the issue. * Jim Galvin: Both the NS records themselves and the zone contents that have to be considered and recommendations made regarding the various configurations. * Didn’t associate Section 1 Codifying to I.A. – these are new issues. * Maybe it should be mandatory for the Gaining Rr to revert the NS upon notification of a formal (codified) transfer dispute. IF that dispute includes the request to revert the NS. * If there is a trigger to make reversal mandatory/automatic there may not be merit for it. * If the TEAC is not responsive in 4 hours, everything after that is not automatic. Someone has to make a decision. * This reversal shouldn’t be automatic. * Keep in mind, you can’t just revert the NS. You have to consider where the zone contents are and make sure those are also “reverted”. * Think how the reversal would happen should be codified. * What do you do if there are uncooperative parties? This is very complicated, but if they are cooperative, why bother. If uncooperative then it would be complicated and a lot of work. * Codifying would be of the current process to make it more transparent. * I think even parties who want to cooperate may hesitate if there is not a formal process, as then they may be concerned about liability if it turns out they did the wrong thing? so having a process they can point to as a reason for what they did may help? * Think there are two issues: 1) codifying for transparency; 2) codifying in more detail in case of disputes. * My “origin story” for this “codification” mechanism was about helping to ensure that the entire community of Registrars understands the “best practices” of informal resolution that exist between the leading registrars in the industry. That way, if all the registrars know how to do these informal resolutions, there should be more of them and they should happen quicker and more routinely. * The most important part of this process is when the registrars don’t agree. * Three separate things: 1) TEAC for emergency contacts; 2) Codified formerly-informal inter-Rr process for disputes; 3) TDRP for disputes that can't be resolved in 2. * For the informal process – having a list of steps would be an important checklist and provides consistency. * May be the next step is to gather a small team to write up the friendly path to be codified, and to help us to see if there is something missing. * A transfer could still follow the process and still be problematic. * It’s troubling that the TRP is limited in scope as Sarah points out. I was thinking that maybe a registrant initiated procedure could possibly encompass the other scenarios (in addition to the possibility of revising the current TDRP itself). * E.g. in TDRP it says "A dispute must be filed no later than twelve (12) months after the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy." - so it requires a violation of the Policy, and describe, in accordance with the Transfer Policy, the grounds on which the Complaint is based… ACTION ITEM: Staff to initiate a small team to develop a proposal/language to codify the informal transfer resolution process. Volunteers on the call: Jody Kolker, Rich Brown, Owen Smigelski Juan Manuel Rojas, Zak Muscovitch and Jothan Frakes. I.B. Additional Element for consideration: Locking Discussion: * Should be similar in steps to the DNS reversal among friendly parties. * Worthwhile also discussing in the small team. * If there are extended lock periods by mutual agreement, maybe there should be a set of best practices, in particular notifications to the registrant – would those be automatic? I.D. Additional Element for consideration: “Escalation” to TDRP Discussion: * Clarification that everyone is on the same page: TDRP is the next logical step, not automatic. That is a decision point that has to be made by the parties. 6. AOB

1 0

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 11 April 2023
by Julie Bisland April 11, 2023

April 11, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/74LKDQ> (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 * Agenda and Notes/Action Items 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

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #86 - 11 April at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 11, 2023

April 11, 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, 18 April at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: Staff to initiate a small team to develop a proposal/language to codify the informal transfer resolution process. Volunteers on the call: Jody Kolker, Rich Brown, Owen Smigelski Juan Manuel Rojas, Zak Muscovitch and Jothan Frakes. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #86 Proposed Agenda 11 April 2023 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates * Project Workplan: Reminder that early input on Phase 2 topics is due on week from today (18 April). No open action items. Hoping to wrap up TEAC/TDRP by ICANN77. 3. Update – Issue Identified at ICANN76 regarding TDRP Section 3.2.4(ii) * Issue raised by George Kirikos was that if the Gaining Registrar couldn’t provide the Gaining FOA, that could be grounds to reverse the transfer. Can’t currently provide the FOA due to GDRP. * Now an explanatory banner noting that not providing the Gaining FOA cannot be grounds for reversal of a transfer. 4. Visual Overview of TEAC, Informal Resolution, and TDRP * See attached document. Notes: * TEAC is just an expedited response to an informal process. * If registrar don’t agree an option could be to file a TDRP, but this is a lengthy and expensive process, so that may be why it’s rarely used. * Other options if registrars still disagree are ICANN Compliance and the courts. * The informal resolution without the TEAC is the focus of our gap analysis. Discussion: * Page 1 – missing is what happens if Gaining Registrar doesn’t make contact within 4 hours per TEAC – ICANN Compliance option. * Question: Are there policies that the registrar has to respond if the registrant asks to start a TEAC? Courts may not be an easy path. Answer: The registrar today is the one responsible to initiating the TEAC contact in a transfer dispute. High 99 percent of the time the registrar is responding to a registrant, but there is no policy obligation to do so. 5. 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…>) I. Codify Informal Resolution * Jothan Frakes: Add “Reversion of Name Servers for the domain name in focus” under “Codify Informal Resolution”: We haven't necessarily sounded this out, but in about 50% of the times I have been in the chain or worker on a TEAC-type contact, the DNS reversion sorted out the matter and reversion was not needed. * Roger: We will cover that next. Spent two weeks on this section. Make sure the groups come together and are making statements as a group. * Staff recap of Part 1: There was some support and some opposition for creating a process around the steps involved in informal resolution, and only where specific actions apply. Some thought this would create transparency and better metrics, others had concerns about burdens for non-compliance and gaming. Also seems to be creating a form of TDRP, so duplicative and burdensome. Invite advocates to volunteer to put pen to paper. DNS Reversion: * From Jothan Frakes: Gaining Registrar: Large corporation buys a domain for marketing campaign, staff transfer to a new registrar in the midst of the campaign – resolution was to revert the name servers to the previous domain. So, wasn’t a transfer dispute but originated there. DNS reversion solved the problem. * Roger: May have originated in the dispute process, but doesn’t seem to fall in this section, which is focused on whether and how to codify informal resolution. * Rick Wilhelm: Not really a transfer dispute, more that my domain name is broken. Informal Poll: In favor or not to codify the informal process (hands up) * Note: Registries are not opposed to codifying, unless and until new requirements are placed on Registries. * To formalize, we may need to form a small group to work on this. * Codification is a better word here than formalization, as the latter could suggest adding requirements to the current informal process. In favor: 7 Not in favor: 0 I.A. Additional Element for consideration: DNS Reversal Discussion: * Recognition that if we do something it could do impact DNSSEC, but we aren’t here to suggest solutions, but could acknowledge the issue. * Jim Galvin: Both the NS records themselves and the zone contents that have to be considered and recommendations made regarding the various configurations. * Didn’t associate Section 1 Codifying to I.A. – these are new issues. * Maybe it should be mandatory for the Gaining Rr to revert the NS upon notification of a formal (codified) transfer dispute. IF that dispute includes the request to revert the NS. * If there is a trigger to make reversal mandatory/automatic there may not be merit for it. * If the TEAC is not responsive in 4 hours, everything after that is not automatic. Someone has to make a decision. * This reversal shouldn’t be automatic. * Keep in mind, you can’t just revert the NS. You have to consider where the zone contents are and make sure those are also “reverted”. * Think how the reversal would happen should be codified. * What do you do if there are uncooperative parties? This is very complicated, but if they are cooperative, why bother. If uncooperative then it would be complicated and a lot of work. * Codifying would be of the current process to make it more transparent. * I think even parties who want to cooperate may hesitate if there is not a formal process, as then they may be concerned about liability if it turns out they did the wrong thing? so having a process they can point to as a reason for what they did may help? * Think there are two issues: 1) codifying for transparency; 2) codifying in more detail in case of disputes. * My “origin story” for this “codification” mechanism was about helping to ensure that the entire community of Registrars understands the “best practices” of informal resolution that exist between the leading registrars in the industry. That way, if all the registrars know how to do these informal resolutions, there should be more of them and they should happen quicker and more routinely. * The most important part of this process is when the registrars don’t agree. * Three separate things: 1) TEAC for emergency contacts; 2) Codified formerly-informal inter-Rr process for disputes; 3) TDRP for disputes that can't be resolved in 2. * For the informal process – having a list of steps would be an important checklist and provides consistency. * May be the next step is to gather a small team to write up the friendly path to be codified, and to help us to see if there is something missing. * A transfer could still follow the process and still be problematic. * It’s troubling that the TRP is limited in scope as Sarah points out. I was thinking that maybe a registrant initiated procedure could possibly encompass the other scenarios (in addition to the possibility of revising the current TDRP itself). * E.g. in TDRP it says "A dispute must be filed no later than twelve (12) months after the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy." - so it requires a violation of the Policy, and describe, in accordance with the Transfer Policy, the grounds on which the Complaint is based… ACTION ITEM: Staff to initiate a small team to develop a proposal/language to codify the informal transfer resolution process. Volunteers on the call: Jody Kolker, Rich Brown, Owen Smigelski Juan Manuel Rojas, Zak Muscovitch and Jothan Frakes. I.B. Additional Element for consideration: Locking Discussion: * Should be similar in steps to the DNS reversal among friendly parties. * Worthwhile also discussing in the small team. * If there are extended lock periods by mutual agreement, maybe there should be a set of best practices, in particular notifications to the registrant – would those be automatic? I.D. Additional Element for consideration: “Escalation” to TDRP Discussion: * Clarification that everyone is on the same page: TDRP is the next logical step, not automatic. That is a decision point that has to be made by the parties. 6. AOB

1 0