January 2024 - GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 30 January 2024
by Julie Bisland 30 Jan '24

30 Jan '24

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 30 January 2024 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/rwDFE> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar [gnso.icann.org]<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, 06 February 2024
by Julie Bisland 30 Jan '24

30 Jan '24

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 06 February 2024 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/sQDFE * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/mpnrptvm 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 on 30 Jan at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 30 Jan '24

30 Jan '24

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, 06 February 2024 at 1600 UTC. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry and Julie ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: WG to complete the COR Reduction Rationale document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImr… Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #116 Proposed Agenda 30 January 2024 Notes: 1. Welcome and Chair updates * Planning for ICANN79: * Only 4 meetings leading up to ICANN79; need to complete COR recommendations. * Two sessions – agendas TBD. * WG Self-Assessment Survey: Link will be sent tomorrow for an interim survey. 2. Transfer Complaint metrics with ICANN Contractual Compliance -- ICANN Compliance (Holida Yanik): Sent attached report in response to WG request. Discussion: * Discrepancies may arise because one case may involve several domain names. Also, cases may span both old and new (NSP) systems. * As we consider this, how to correlated it to registrations – how many complaints involve multiple domain names? Don’t have those numbers, but it is quite often. * Just a picture of what is going on in the wider world – just a small fraction. Good that most cases are closed without going to the registrar, but also reflects a lot of confusion. Suggests that the WG’s plan to go with a simple approach for COR is the right approach. * The numbers are small so need to look at the pain points. * Found it very confusing to go through the report -- such as the difference between unauthorized CORs and CORs denied. It seems like there is a low percentage of complaints relative to registrations. This supports the notion of moving to a notification process. * ICANN Compliance: Not all registrants are aware of ICANN. Page 2 – unauthorized complaints; page 4 – inability to complete the COR (registrants). * From the chat: * These are just the Complaints that made it to ICANN, not the entire universe of Complaints, most of which would have been dealt with by the registrars themselves. * Yes - so in our notice process we've discussed requiring the Rr to provide info about how to address complaints, sounds like that will indeed be useful. 3. COR Polls and Discussion: Elimination, Notifications, and Definitions – See attached slides. * The reason for the poll questions is to help determine a recommendation. Poll 1: At this stage in the group's discussions, are you convinced that the Change of Registrant (COR) policy should be eliminated entirely? 1. YES, there should no longer be any COR policy anywhere – 50% 2. NO, there should remain a reduced COR policy somewhere – 50% Poll 2: At this stage in the group's discussions, are you convinced there should be mandatory notifications sent to the Prior & New Registrant when specific contact fields are updated? 1. YES, notifications should be mandatory – 60% 2. NO, notifications should be optional – 40% Discussion: * There is a close split because there are only two choices – no option to opt out. * Trying to be as clear as possible. * Some agreement to have COR somewhere else – doesn’t include inter-registrar policy addressed elsewhere. * Notifications should exist but dealt with elsewhere, outside of the Transfer Policy. * Elimination completely but address elsewhere? What is the specific proposal? There isn’t one – but there are requirements spread around elsewhere. But don’t think everything is covered, such as mandatory notifications. * Not a strong recommendation that some other group needs to determine where these notifications are addressed; not sure what you would get. * GNSO Council would have to make the decision of where that is addressed. * Question: Is COR a Transfer Policy issue? * If we are eliminating COR, first we are eliminating the 60- or 30-) day lock; looks like a complete gutting of protections. * If we eliminate COR, could we keep the option for the registrar to put on a lock if it determines that a transfer is fraudulent. * Not gutting protections, but policy isn’t doing what it was designed to do (for protecting registrants); also, it’s not a transfer, but a change of ownership. Keep the bare minimum. * Staff: If section 2 of Transfer Policy is removed and MUSTs turned to MAYs for notifications, this would no longer be a policy, but perhaps an advisory. * Maybe Section 2 is changed to an advisory section on notification. * Don’t think removing entirely (no notifications) would be acceptable by the public. Have to keep the notifications. Against putting it back to Council to decide – no idea how long that would take. * 50/50 split is just the starting point – what would it take to get everyone to agree? A two-pronged approach to addressing disputes, including a registrant initiated transfer dispute resolution policy. * Sounds like elimination of Section 2 is not supported by this group. * Agree that we need a policy that allows a registrant to reverse a transfer. * Need to work out the details of a notification system. * If we stick with a reduced COR and registrars have their own policies, do we still need to define “material change”. Could be confusing if registrars all define it differently. * Potential middle path – having the option for the registrant opt out of a mandatory notification? * Still see a big issue. What if the person opting out is doing it for fraudulent reasons? * If we are going to require it we shouldn’t allow an opt out. * Let’s assume if COR changes to notifications those should be mandatory. * Think about what a notification would entail. * Opt out could need to be confirmed/verified as valid. * Not envisioning the notification as an email. Could be something else. * Keep a small modified Section 2 that is mandatory notifications. Still need to address definitions and the details of notifications. * See slides 6 and 7 – notification definitions and triggers. Poll 3: For the purposes of a reduced COR/notification policy, what does the WG need to define? 1. Change of Registrant 2. Change of Control 3. Both 4. Neither Discussion: * Neither can be to leave it as is. * Not sure definitions are irrelevant – just what triggers a notification – change of registrant data. * Don’t need to complete the poll. Support for Change of Registrant data as the trigger for notification. Might still need some clarification of what that would be. ACTION ITEM: WG to complete the COR Reduction Rationale document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImr… 4. AOB

1 0

**15-MINUTE REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 30 January 2024
by Julie Bisland 30 Jan '24

30 Jan '24

**15-MINUTE REMINDER** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 30 January 2024 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/rwDFE * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/4cx3tpnt [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4cx3tpnt__;!!PtGJab4!7A25DqA…> 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, 30 January 2024
by Julie Bisland 29 Jan '24

29 Jan '24

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 30 January 2024 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/rwDFE * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/4cx3tpnt [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4cx3tpnt__;!!PtGJab4!7A25DqA…> 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 - Meeting #116 Tuesday, 30 January 2024 at 1600 UTC
by Christian Wheeler 26 Jan '24

26 Jan '24

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for our next call, taking place on Tuesday, 30 January 2024 at 16:00 UTC. Before our call on Tuesday, please review ICANN Contractual Compliance’s follow-up metrics report and overview, which was shared to the list on Wednesday, 24 January 2024. Thank you and we look forward to seeing you all virtually. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry, and Julie ---------- Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #116 Proposed Agenda 30 January 2024 1. Welcome and Chair updates 2. Transfer Complaint metrics with ICANN Contractual Compliance 3. COR Polls and Discussion: Elimination, Notifications, and Definitions 4. AOB

1 0

TPR WG Inquiry: Transfer Complaint statistics
by Christian Wheeler 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

Dear TPR WG members, Thank you for your patience while ICANN’s Contractual Compliance team reviewed your follow-up inquiry and prepared their response. The attached report is in response to the WG’s request for context behind Compliance’s complaint volumes, specifically, the numbers pertaining to unauthorized inter-registrar transfers, unauthorized COR complaints, and the volume of complaints determined by Compliance to be valid and subsequently addressed with registrars. Holida Yanik has provided the attached report as well as the below explanation, and she will be available for questions during our next TPR WG call (30 January at 16 UTC). Please review this email and attached report prior to our upcoming call on Tuesday. Thank you. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry and Julie On 29 August 2020, ICANN Contractual Compliance migrated to a new case processing platform, the Naming Services portal for Compliance (NSp Compliance). NSp Compliance includes “smart forms” tailored for individual complaint types, which capture additional reporting criteria for each complaint type, including subject matter category (e.g. Unauthorized Transfer and/or Unauthorized COR). Categories of complaints in NSp are selected by complainants while submitting the complaint. This means that these numbers are taking into account what the complainants reported to us while submitting the complaints. Page 1: 1. During the period covering Sept 2020-Oct 2023 period (since transition to NSp), ICANN compliance received in total 13.630 of Transfer complaints. The number of transfer complaints received during Sept 2020-July 2021 period was severely impacted by an influx of complaints concerning failing registrar with more than 100k domains under registration, which has since been terminated (you can view Notice of Termination here<https://www.icann.org/uploads/compliance_notice/attachment/1155/hedlund-to-…> and find ICANN’s announcement regarding the invocation of De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure (DARTP) here<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/net-4-india-registrants-next…>). 2. During this period, ICANN Compliance closed 12.497 complaints as invalid (without initiating a case with the contracted party) and addressed 1.353 complaints with Contracted Parties (CP). Note: The number of complaints received may not align with the number of closed complaints within the same time periods. Discrepancy may arise because complaints may undergo processing and closure in subsequent periods. Page 2: From Sept 2020 through Oct 2023, ICANN Compliance: 1. received 988 complaints for which complainants selected the categories “Unauthorized Inter-Registrar Transfer” and “Unauthorized COR”. 2. closed 679 Unauthorized Inter-Registrar Transfer complaints as invalid and addressed with CPs 88 complaints. 3. closed 169 Unauthorized COR complaints as invalid and addressed with 42 complaints. Page 3: Out of 81 closed complaints under complaint categories related to improperly allowed transfers despite of 60-Day COR Lock, URS, UDRP, TDRP, Court Order, 80 complaints were closed as invalid and 1 complaint was addressed with CP. Page 4: Out of 2435 closed complaints with complaint categories related to denied COR (Other, COR Not Authorized, Domain Expired, Court Order, and UDRP, URS or TDRP Proceedings),2316 complaints were closed as invalid and 119 complaints were addressed with CPs. Page 5: Out of 10,670 closed complaints with complaint categories related to denied Inter-registrar Transfer (Other, 60-day COR Lock, 60-day Lock After Creation or Transfer, Evidence of Fraud, Registrant Identity Dispute, Transfer Contact Objection, Nonpayment of Registration Period, Court Order, and UDRP, URS or TDRP Proceedings), 9649 complaints were closed as invalid, while 1021 complaints were sent to CPs. Page 6: Out of 157 closed complaints where complainants selected the TEAC category, 151 complaints were closed as invalid, while 6 complaints were validated and sent to CPs. Page 7: ICANN Contractual closed 12.497 transfer complaints as invalid (without initiating a case with the contracted party). The table shows the number of complaints closed as invalid by closure codes. Page 8: ICANN Compliance closed 1.572 Contracted Party cases. The table shows the number of closed CP cases by closure codes.

1 0

Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 30 January 2024
by Julie Bisland 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 30 January 2024 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/rwDFE * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/4cx3tpnt 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

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 23 January 2024
by Julie Bisland 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 23 January 2024 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/rQDFE> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar [gnso.icann.org]<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 on 23 Jan at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, 30 January 2024 at 1600 UTC. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry and Julie ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: None captured. Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #115 Proposed Agenda 23 January 2024 Notes: 1. Welcome and Chair updates * Want to get COR discussions wrapped up by ICANN79. 2. COR Sunset/Definition discussion – starting at slide 3 (see attached): Discussion: * 2.3 doesn’t really apply (subject to a UDRP). That’s an overlap in policy. Would still be covered in UDRP policy. * On slide 5: there may be circumstances to proactively opt out of this. * This is if it’s recommended to get rid of COR. Poll (slide 6): Option 1: No change to COR definition (COR = name, organization, email address) --13% Option 2: Expand COR definition (COR = name, organization, email address, and phone number) -- 20% Option 3: Reduce COR definition (or retitle to Change of Control) to email address only -- 7% Option 4: Add Change of Control definition (email address or other anchor contact method) that is treated differently/separately from a COR -- 27% Option 5: Eliminate the Change of Registrant policy (no notifications are required when updating any registrant data) -- 33% Discussion: * If we get rid of the policy, GDPR may still have requirements that apply. * Note that this is COR policy, separate from the TAC. * If we look at the second bullet, how to take action, there is no requirement associate with this – expect a lot of objections in public comment, especially Option 5 (COR elimination); need to have a rationale for what we are recommending. * Option 5: Don’t think the COR works as it currently, but some kind of notification could be useful, but maybe somewhere else. * Are you suggesting notification is a MUST for any data? Yes but not in Transfer Policy. Maybe recommend to Council. * Either Option 5 or 4 get the most support. * Maybe add an Option 6 – eliminate COR but keep in a notification requirement. * Agree that sending a notice is a good thing to prior and updated address but don’t need a lock. Do we need a Notification Policy? * It’s not about transfers so maybe it goes somewhere else. * We’ve also enhanced the TAC request process. * We aren’t providing the most secure solution; you have to find that somewhere else. * Maybe the notification is a decision by the registrar – to provide that security option to customers. * Leaving notification in place could address registrant concerns. * Eliminating could result in a backlash from the community – notification is something at least for the optics. * From a staff perspective the sunset of most of COR Policy will be a shock to the community. WG needs to coalesce around a recommendation and rationale, or present options for public comment. Also need to highlight other requirements, such as under GDPR. * Need to highlight in the rationale that the current policy doesn’t work and why. * Need to pre-emptively prepare for public comment with a rationale. 3. Privacy/Proxy charter questions – start with slide 9 Discussion: * This will go away with a notification policy. * Proxy is the registrant. Under GDPR these questions go away. d10) Should the policy be the same regardless of whether the registrant uses a privacy service or a proxy service? If not, how should these be treated differently? * If the COR is removed this (question d10) is not needed? Maybe notifications for the removal of a privacy/proxy service? * Prior to GDPR you had to turn off a privacy/proxy service before transfer. * Is it possible that privacy/proxy services are truly third parties? Hard to put all in one category -- it depends. * Should turning on or off of a privacy/proxy service trigger a notification? Some do not consider it a change of registrant. d11) Are notifications provided to privacy/proxy customers regarding COR and changes to the privacy/proxy service information sufficient? For example, should there be additional notifications or warnings given to a privacy/proxy customer if the privacy/proxy service regularly changes the privacy/proxy anonymized email address? * No. * Not suggesting notification for any change. 4. Designated Agent charter questions Discussion: d12) In its survey response, the Registrar Stakeholder Group indicated that, “There is. . . overuse of the Designated Agent, which has basically circumvented the policy.” To what extent is this the case? What is the impact? * Would like an explanation for how Designated Agent is used. * There is overuse of the Designated Agent by design. There is an operational reason it is in there. d13) If the Designated Agent function is not operating as intended, should it be retained and modified? Eliminated? * Can only eliminate it if you eliminate the COR. * It is capitalized because it’s a defined term in the policy. d14) Are there alternative means to meet the objectives of Designated Agent role? * Only if COR isn’t eliminated. * Need to look at how the DA originated. * Perhaps waiving some rights to the registrar or others would replace it. d15) Based on complaints received by ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Department, there appear to be different interpretations of the role and authority of the Designated Agent. If the Designated Agent function remains, should this flexibility be retained? Does the flexibility create the potential for abuse? * When we came up with the DA we decided not to determine who that should be. d16) If the role of the Designated Agent is to be clarified further, should it be narrowed with more specific instructions on when it is appropriate and how it is to be used? * Should the Designated Agent be given blanket authority to approve any and all CORs? Or should the authority be limited to specific COR requests? Does the authority to approve a COR also include the authority to request/initiate a COR without the Registered Name Holder requesting the COR? * If you are going to do this you may as well take the DA out of the policy. 5. AOB

1 0