- GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

Re: [GNSO-TPR] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda for meeting #22 on Tuesday 19 October2021 at 16:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Oct. 15, 2021

Oct. 15, 2021

Hi Sarah, Thanks for the comment. Unless anyone objects, we can certainly add a comment to that effect. Kind regards, Emily From: Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com> Date: Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:25 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "gnso-tpr(a)icann.org" <gnso-tpr(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-TPR] Proposed agenda for meeting #22 on Tuesday 19 October2021 at 16:00 UTC Hi team Reviewed the ICANN72 pdf, have a comment. The page 8 definition of the AuthInfo code (“Unique code created by a registrar on a per-domain basis to identify the registrant of the domain name”) is not the definition we came up with, I think it’s pieces pulled together from the current Transfer Policy. Can this be marked on this slide as unofficial and not the long-term definition, with the source included, and a note that updating this definition is part of our group’s work? I just wouldn’t want this slide to lead anyone to think that this is our current working definition, should be used in the long-term, etc. Thanks! -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 [cid:image001.png@01D7C1DE.33B37B60] From: Emily Barabas<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> Sent: October 15, 2021 3:27 AM To: gnso-tpr(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Proposed agenda for meeting #22 on Tuesday 19 October2021 at 16:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 19 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Julie, Caitlin, Berry, and Emily Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #22 Proposed Agenda Tuesday 19 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes) 3. Deliberations on Additional Security Measures (60 minutes) * Additional Security Measures working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1q7xaJuxi50Q6…> 4. Review: Summary of “Potential Recommendations Under Consideration” to be presented to the community during ICANN72 session (15 minutes) * See slide 12 of the attached deck 5. AOB (5 minutes) * ICANN72 session: Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 17:30 UTC

1 0

Proposed agenda for meeting #22 on Tuesday 19 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Oct. 15, 2021

Oct. 15, 2021

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 19 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Julie, Caitlin, Berry, and Emily Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #22 Proposed Agenda Tuesday 19 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes) 3. Deliberations on Additional Security Measures (60 minutes) * Additional Security Measures working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7xaJuxi50Q6TDD26H92P6wOfZ8luap1wdWOtIg…> 4. Review: Summary of “Potential Recommendations Under Consideration” to be presented to the community during ICANN72 session (15 minutes) * See slide 12 of the attached deck 5. AOB (5 minutes) * ICANN72 session: Tuesday, 26 October 2021 at 17:30 UTC

2 2

Notes and action items - TPR WG Meeting #21 - 12 Oct 2021
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

Dear TPR WG Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next TPR WG meeting will be Tuesday, 19 October at 16:00 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin Action Items 1. WG members should review the Gaining and Losing GOA working documents – including candidate recommendations for the Losing FOA and suggested changes to the Gaining FOA policy. See: Gaining FOA working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QOCzbLh7w4hdijpAsg6_lybddr0nlsFDcWjdz5e…> and Losing FOA working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wCUMe9ii6g05kUZ558IuUvJaS6K2t0GZJYvlfOy…>. 2. Charter Question b3 -- Staff to incorporate a recommendation to retain this policy with change from days to hours. 3. AuthInfo Code Candidate Recommendations: WG members to provide their input as suggestions in the AuthInfo Code Candidate Recommendations at: AuthInfo Codes working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPo…>. 4. WG members to review and comment on the Additional Security Measures working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1q7xaJuxi50Q6…> in preparation for the discussion during the next WG meeting on 19 October. Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #21 Tuesday 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) - Jim Galvin will soon be occupying a new role: I have been selected to be SSAC’s liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, a role that I will assume at the AGM. It won’t change my role on the WG as I will continue to represent the Registry Stakeholder Group. See: 2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes) * The WG will meet at ICANN72 on Tuesday, 26 October at 10:30 local time. * Roger will provide an update on the WG’s work during the Policy Update webinar today, 12 October, at 20:00 UTC. * Look at the Gaining and Losing FOA working documents: Staff have added candidate recommendations. ACTION ITEM: WG members should review the Gaining and Losing GOA working documents – including candidate recommendations for the Losing FOA and suggested changes to the Gaining FOA policy. See: Gaining FOA working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QOCzbLh7w4hdijpAsg6_lybddr0nlsFDcWjdz5e…> and Losing FOA working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wCUMe9ii6g05kUZ558IuUvJaS6K2t0GZJYvlfOy…>. 3. Review of draft responses to charter questions and candidate recommendations for AuthInfo Codes – see end of document beginning on page 16 (60 minutes) at: AuthInfo Codes working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPo…> Discussion: Charter Question b1) Is AuthInfo Code still a secure method for inter-registrar transfers? What evidence was used by the Working Group to make this determination? Candidate Recommendation 2: The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Authorization Code be defined as follows: “A Transfer Authorization Code (TAC) is a code created by a Registrar of Record to validate that a request to transfer a domain name in a generic top-level domain (gTLD) is submitted by the authorized person, which may be the RNH or another appropriate party. The individual demonstrates that they are the authorized person by providing the TAC. A TAC is required for a Registered Name Holder to transfer a domain name to be transferred from one Registrar to another.” * Question: Compliance concerns -- The term “authorized person” does not explicitly refer to the Registered Name Holder. Recommend replacing “authorized person” with “Registered Name Holder” to avoid ambiguity and arguments due to various interpretations. Concerns about the implementation of this and how it would add to security measures. Make more specific – unless we are having a positive response to the TAC, to make it more secure. Candidate Recommendation 6: [The Working Group recommends that the Registry notifies the Registrar of Record [and registrant] receive a notification after [number] failed attempts to enter the TAC. The Registrar of Record may subsequently also provide a notification to the registrant that these failed attempts have taken place. ICANN Org may change from time to time the number of failed attempts that trigger a notification.] OR [The Working Group recommends that after [number] failed attempts to enter the TAC, it is not possible to attempt a transfer for [period of time]. ICANN Org may change from time to time the number of failed attempts that trigger this result.]. * Question: Trying to understand what we are trying to achieve with Recommendation 6. Beyond the syntax what other check is going on here? There shouldn’t be any other reason for a TAC to fail. Answer: The goal should be that the correct syntax should be known to anyone. Trying to prevent a brute force attack. The syntax being right and it matching are two different things. This is when the syntax is right but it doesn’t match. The goal is to notify the registrar or record so it could notify the registrar. Question: So what Recommendation 6 refers to is the Gaining registrar. Want to acknowledge that Registries would need to talk to our team about a recommendation that the registrar can’t make transfers if they get it wrong. We’d then have to provide a process for undoing the lockdown. Answer: I don’t think we are looking for a lockdown, we are looking for a notification that someone has tried this X number of times. Question: Registries will have to discuss because this is a new notification. How would you like that notification sent? Need to specify that process. This would have to be automated, perhaps through a poll message. * Question: Has anyone encountered this? Do we have any data on brute force attack of the AuthInfo Code? Answer: Don’t know of any. This came from the recommendation that the transfer is immediate – this would be the last line of defense. Not just a brute force but perhaps also a systemic problem. * Many of these candidate recommendations came out of brainstorming of the small group. One of the questions was what are the methods to reduce brute force attacks. * Note that this are candidate recommendations – not even drafts. These are points that were pulled out of discussions on the charter questions. * Any additional protection is positive. * In the case of recommendation 6, this was framed as if there were no other restrictions, i.e. an immediate transfer, to provide protection against brute forcing. Wouldn’t apply if there was a NACK for example. Charter Question b2) The registrar is currently the authoritative holder of the AuthInfo Code. Should this be maintained, or should the registry be the authoritative AuthInfo Code holder? Why? Candidate Recommendation 7: The Working Group recommends that the registrar continue to own and generate the TAC. The Working Group further recommends that the TAC is only generated by the Registrar of Record upon request by the registrant. When the registrar provides the TAC to the registrant it should also provide information about when the TAC will expire. * Question: This could relate to bulk transfers. Are we addressing those? Answer: Yes. As a bulk operation that may not work, but let’s focus on individual transfers. We may have to clarify for bulk transfers. * For all of these recommendations the plan is just to get something on paper, but there will be further opportunities to revise them. We are trying to see where there is agreement and where more discussion is needed. Candidate Recommendation 8: The Working Group recommends that when the registry receives the TAC, the registry must securely store the TAC using a one-way hash that protects the TAC from disclosure by using a secure password-hashing function (for example, bcrypt). * Rather than being specific. WG members should suggest language. * Question: This seems to be a pretty prescriptive requirement to put on a registry. Is this really what we want? Candidate Recommendation 9: The Working Group confirms the following provision of Appendix G: Supplemental Procedures to the Transfer Policy contained in the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data: “4. Registry Operator MUST verify that the "AuthInfo" code provided by the Gaining Registrar is valid in order to accept an inter-registrar transfer request.” * Question: Does this mean there's a mechanism to validate the TAC other than the transfer? * There are two kinds of validation. There registry never actually knows what the TAC is in clear text. If an incumbent registrar is concerned that the TAC is not correct it just creates a new one and stores it. It is in plain text until the registry has it, but inside an encrypted tunnel. Charter Question b3) The Transfer Policy currently requires registrars to provide the AuthInfo Code to the registrant within five [calendar] days of a request. Is this an appropriate SLA for the registrar’s provision of the AuthInfo Code, or does it need to be updated? * No candidate recommendations on this. * WG could decide to have a recommendation that there are no changes to this policy. * Could say number of hours rather than number of days. ACTION ITEM: Staff to incorporate a recommendation to retain this policy with change from days to hours. Charter Question b4) The Transfer Policy does not currently require a standard Time to Live (TTL) for the AuthInfo Code. Should there be a standard Time To Live (TTL) for the AuthInfo Code? In other words, should the AuthInfo Code expire after a certain amount of time (hours, calendar days, etc.)? Candidate Recommendation 10: The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Policy include a standard maximum Time To Live (TTL) for the TAC of [14 days]. Candidate Recommendation 11: The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Policy include a standard minimum Time To Live (TTL) for the TAC of [period]. * This was more for registrars than registries – enforced by the registry. The idea was that there was a minimum. * Important that we have a way to cancel the TTL. If the sponsoring registrar sees a problem they can change the TAC. * Need to take a question back to registries – not certain that having registries enforce the TTL is the right model. What are we trying to achieve by having the registry enforce the TTL. Don’t we want to say that the TAC can only be used once – single use. Like more discussion on this. * Should definitely get a recommendation around one-time use TAC. * The best technical solution to make sure that there aren’t registrar errors would be at least the registry verifies that the TAC is not older than 14 days – they are verifying the TTL. * Do we have some statistics from ccTLDs depending only on TAC re TTL? * Good to at least have a minimum. * What does it mean if the registry is involved in this process? Suggest that the minimum level doesn’t seem to provide protection against a registrar being a bad actor, and could cause more issues. * Minimum causes more problems than it solves. * If you are going to have SLAs then you have to promise the registrant X amount of time to do the transfer. Could have a minimum enforced TTL on the registrar (by ICANN Compliance) not enforced by the registry. * Clearer language makes it easier for Compliance to enforce it. * This would be solved if we had a standard TTL, rather than a minimum (or maximum) TTL. Just say 14 days. * Unless people want to argue for a minimum we seem to agree to drop Candidate Recommendation 11. * If we say in a policy that it has to be 14 days then blanking/nulling it would go against that policy. * The registrar should be able to null or reset a TAC even during the TTL period. * The only real benefit of a minimum is it gives you a reactive mechanism for getting at bad actors. * Seems to be agreement for a standard for 14 days, rather than maximum or minimum and for the registrar to be able to nullify the TAC during the TTL. * You want to make sure there is time for manual steps to happen. Maximum TTL has the advantage that it gets at a security consideration – a way at getting at registrars who are not providing a basic level of security service. b5) Should the ability for registrants to request AuthInfo Codes in bulk be streamlined and codified? If so, should additional security measures be considered? * [For the Working Group to confirm: This question will be addressed when bulk transfers are discussed more generally in Phase 2. ACTION ITEM: WG members to provide their input as suggestions in the AuthInfo Code Candidate Recommendations at: AuthInfo Codes working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPo…>. 4. Deliberations on Additional Security Measures (15 minutes, time permitting) – see: Additional Security Measures working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1q7xaJuxi50Q6…> ACTION ITEM: WG members to review and comment on the Additional Security Measures working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1q7xaJuxi50Q6…> in preparation for the discussion during the next WG meeting on 19 October. This is the related charter question: “a6) Survey respondents noted that mandatory domain name locking is an additional security enhancement to prevent domain name hijacking and improper domain name transfers. The Transfer Policy does not currently require mandatory domain name locking; it allows a registrar to NACK an inter-registrar transfer if the inter-registrar transfer was requested within 60 days of the domain name’s creation date as shown in the registry RDDS record for the domain name or if the domain name is within 60 days after being transferred. Is mandatory domain name locking an additional requirement the Working Group believes should be added to the Transfer Policy?” 5. AOB (5 minutes) * Next meeting: 19 October 2021 @ 16.00 UTC

1 0

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 12 October 2021
by Julie Bisland Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/LgA_Cg> (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 (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * 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, 19 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> * Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/MgA_Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yxztuddw ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the Main Zoom Webinar link above and staff will promote you to panelist. * Chat: Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Everyone so everyone can see and so it’s captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – For tracking alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

**Starting in 15 minutes** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 12, 2021

Oct. 12, 2021

**Starting in 15 minutes** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> * Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/LgA_Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5znrvb37 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5znrvb37__;!!PtGJab4!rByaHjr…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the Main Zoom Webinar link above and staff will promote you to panelist. * Chat: Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Everyone so everyone can see and so it’s captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – For tracking alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 11, 2021

Oct. 11, 2021

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> * Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/LgA_Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/5znrvb37 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/5znrvb37__;!!PtGJab4!rByaHjr…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the Main Zoom Webinar link above and staff will promote you to panelist. * Chat: Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Everyone so everyone can see and so it’s captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – For tracking alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed agenda for meeting #21 on Tuesday 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Oct. 10, 2021

Oct. 10, 2021

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Julie, Caitlin, Berry, and Emily Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #21 Proposed Agenda Tuesday 12 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes) 3. Review of draft responses to charter questions and candidate recommendations for AuthInfo Codes – see end of document beginning on page 16 (60 minutes) * AuthInfo Codes working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPofLQCWIQXz8lT7KEj1HgH3b_obh0…> 1. Deliberations on Additional Security Measures (15 minutes, time permitting) * Additional Security Measures working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7xaJuxi50Q6TDD26H92P6wOfZ8luap1wdWOtIg…> 5. AOB (5 minutes) * Next meeting: 19 October 2021 @ 16.00 UTC

1 0

Please read | ICANN72 GNSO Policy Briefing and ICANN72 Policy Outlook Report Available for Download
by Terri Agnew Oct. 6, 2021

Oct. 6, 2021

Dear All, Please find both the GNSO Policy Briefing and Policy Outlook Report links for ICANN72. GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!t9…> ICANN72 Policy Outlook Report: https://go.icann.org/outlook72 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/outlook72__;!!PtGJab4!t9j8H…> Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Policy Operations Specialist (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Notes and action items - TPR WG Meeting #20 - 5 Oct 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen Oct. 5, 2021

Oct. 5, 2021

Dear TPR WG Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next TPR WG meeting will be Tuesday, 12 October at 16:00 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin Action Items 1. Working Group Members to review the table on p. 14 of the Gaining FOA working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QOCzbLh7w4hdijpAsg6_lybddr0nlsFDcWjdz5e…>, which sets out the purposes/functions of the pre-GDPR Gaining FOA. The purposes/functions are listed in an effort to ensure that if the Gaining FOA is ultimately eliminated, any important purpose/function is covered elsewhere or in an updated step of the transfer process by Monday, 11 October. 2. TPR Support Staff to review the transcript from today's call and document the rationales described for why the Gaining FOA may be technically feasible, but it is NOT commercially feasible or legally authorized under the current data protection landscape. 3. Working Group Members to review the TAC Candidate Recommendations, beginning on p. 17 of the Auth-Info Code working document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPofLQCWIQXz8lT7KEj1HgH3b_obh0…>, and provide comments, concerns, and proposed edits, etc., by Monday, 11 October. Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #20 Tuesday 5 October 2021 at 16:00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) * Tucows has recently purchased the registry platform of another company. Sarah will continue to represent the RrSG but wanted to note this. * Thomas Keller has left the RrSG, and accordingly, has left the WG. 2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes) 3. Upcoming meeting schedule and ICANN72 (5 minutes) * TPR session will be Tuesday, 26 October at 10:30-12:00 UTC. This will function as a normal WG meeting. * The Tuesday, 2 November meeting immediately following ICANN72 will be cancelled. 4. Gaining FOA (40 minutes) · Gaining FOA working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1QOCzbLh7w4hd…> · In reviewing the Gaining FOA, support staff has outlined the functions of the Gaining FOA to see if the functions and security measures are covered. * 1. Provides a verification step that is distinct from any processes with the Losing Registrar. * The Gaining and Losing FOA were methods of how to transfer the domain name. These were not really a verification step. With the verification of the TAC, this would be covered. * If the Gaining FOA is removed and the team is relying on stronger security features, wonder if now is a good time to discuss what some of those additional security features may be. For example, when thinking about the entire transfer process, is it worth giving initial indications about what additional security measures could be explored in the context of the Gaining FOA being removed. With respect to Charter question a3, the Temp Spec references other secure methods – is this something that should be explored here? * The team already put in details regarding the TAC – does anyone believe this requires more discussion? * The process the WG is going through is trying to capture the deliberation and rationale that is being proposed by the WG. Part of that process is trying to consider other possible aspects. For example, Charter question a3 – until such time as the RDAP service or other secure method…the Temp Spec is pointing to RDAP and/or some secure method for transferring the data. For now, set aside the questions of lawfulness – the group needs to provide appropriate rationale for why the Gaining FOA is no longer required. As a practical matter, pre-GDPR, the Gaining Registrar got information automated via Port43, and registrars whitelisted each other to facilitate this. Could it be conceivable that now that RDAP is partially initiated that in two years – could a whitelist function be implemented that would allow registrars to still obtain the email address of an registered name holder? Or if not as simple as whitelisting, is there some sort of authentication mechanism that could be considered? This is the kind of deliberation that needs to happen here to provide the rationale for why the Gaining FOA could be removed. * The technical answer is yes – there are many ways to facilitate this; however, we must consider data protection law. * There will not be a legal basis for this transfer – the Gaining FOA is not needed. This is also probably not commercially feasible. * This could end up being very confusing for the registrant. In some jurisdictions, this is not possible, and transfers would be handled differently from registrar to registrar – this is not ideal. * Could the SSAD, if it were to be approved, be a way for registrars to gain access to the registered name holder’s data? UDRP providers are envisioned to use SSAD to verify the respondent in a UDRP complaint; similarly, could gaining registrars use SSAD to verify the identity of the registered name holder for purposes of a transfer? * Prior to GDPR, there was a system called RADAR that registrars could use. The problem would be the level of effort where you are potentially losing a paying customer could be cost-prohibitive. This does not overcome the risk of the transfer of personal information under GDPR. * Worthy to note that yes, there may be technical solutions. Is legal advice necessary to make a determination about the lawfulness of the processing of data? One member noted that there is not a lawful basis to process this data. This warrants an action by this group to document the lawfulness or lack thereof of processing this data. This is important to document for the purpose of public comment and the board. The response that this is not lawful will not be adequate. In today’s world, there is still a balancing for disclosure to UDRP providers. Recommend the group is very technically and legally precise and makes this understandable for those outside of this group. * Support Staff to pull out the relevant portions of this conversation to document rationales discussed * It is not that the gaining FOA is not obtaining the PII. It used to be that the public WHOIS was used to send the FOA to the domain owner. The Team has to ground this transfer in necessity. Unlike the UDRP, where the data is necessary, the transfer process has functioned properly without the Gaining FOA for years without instances of increased domain name theft. * ICANN community seems to be very easy going on the data that is collected and processed. The data registrars have, in general, is high level data, and it poses a huge security risk. * Transfers used to be just FOAs and then auth-info codes were added to make it more secure. Auth-info codes obviated the need for Gaining FOAs, and the last three years have additionally proven this point. * Gaining FOA also provides notice that registrant will need to enter into Registration Agreement with new Registrar * The registrant will need to enter into a registration agreement, but the Gaining FOA is not the first interaction between the gaining registrar and the registrant. The terms of service and registration agreement should happen before the Gaining FOA step. * Confirm the transfer in a 5-day window – have to actively knowledge the transfer – this may be a security feature that is not covered in future-state. * Loosely provides instructions about how to stop the transfer. * This chart is helpful – the 5-day window is already covered (item 2) and provides instructions about to stop the transfer is already covered in item 5. * Encourage members to continue adding reasons to the right side of the column so that the rationale is clearly documented. * 2. Transfer may proceed only when RNH has responded to this notification, therefore the notification is always well in advance of the transfer taking place. * 3. Gaining Rr obtains PII from Losing Rr and uses it to send Gaining FOA. * 4. Express authorization by RNH is needed for transfer to proceed. * 5. If the RNH takes no action in response to the Gaining FOA, transfer does not proceed. * 6. The Gaining FOA provides documentation that RNH has authorized the transfer. 1. Review of draft responses to charter questions and candidate recommendations for AuthInfo Codes (30 minutes) · AuthInfo Codes working document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPo…> · Based on the Team’s previous discussions, Support Staff drafted responses to the charter questions and accompanying candidate recommendations for the WG to review. · Note: these are not draft recommendations at this stage. · Candidate Recommendation 1: The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Policy and all related policies use the term “Transfer Authorization Code (TAC)” in place of the currently-used term “AuthInfo Code.” This recommendation is for an update to terminology only and does not imply any other changes to the substance of the policies. · Candidate Recommendation 2: The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Authorization Code be defined as follows: “A Transfer Authorization Code (TAC) is a code created by a Registrar of Record to validate that a request to transfer domain name in a generic top-level domain (gTLD) is submitted by the authorized person. A TAC is required for a Registered Name Holder to transfer a domain name from one Registrar to another.” * It is reasonable in some situations where someone other than the domain owner would have the TAC. Not sure this should be limited to authorized person. WG considered that having the TAC makes someone an authorized person. · Candidate Recommendation 3: The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Policy require that the TAC must be a minimum of [16 characters] [32 characters] in length or any alternative minimum length prescribed by ICANN from time to time. * There were two suggestions for length, so both options are included in brackets. · Candidate Recommendation 4: The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Policy require that the TAC include at a minimum of one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number, and one special character. * ICANN internal colleagues noted that entropy is important – for example, 128 bits of entropy. * Instead of specifying, perhaps reference a security standard like NIST. * The problem with specifying a current standard is what happens when the standard changes – how long do registrars have to implement the new standard? * Could consider adding – or different length as prescribed by ICANN * Could the policy recommendation be for ICANN to set the specific standard as prescribed by NIST – in other words, the policy itself would be specific, but the policy recommendation would not be specific to allow for flexibility. · Candidate Recommendation 5: The Working Group recommends that the registry verify that the TAC meets the requirements specified in Recommendations 3 and 4. * When should this verification take place? If anyone has comments, please populate in the document. · Candidate Recommendation 6: [The Working Group recommends that the Registrar of Record [and registrant] receive a notification after [number] failed attempts to enter the TAC. ICANN Org may change from time to time the number of failed attempts that trigger a notification.] OR [The Working Group recommends that after [number] failed attempts to enter the TAC, it is not possible to attempt a transfer for [period of time]. ICANN Org may change from time to time the number of failed attempts that trigger this result.]. 5. AOB (5 minutes) · Next meeting: 12 October 2021 @ 16.00 UTC

1 0