- GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda - Meeting #116 Tuesday, 30 January 2024 at 1600 UTC
by Christian Wheeler Jan. 26, 2024

Jan. 26, 2024

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 Jan. 24, 2024

Jan. 24, 2024

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 Jan. 23, 2024

Jan. 23, 2024

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 Jan. 23, 2024

Jan. 23, 2024

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 Jan. 23, 2024

Jan. 23, 2024

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

**ON IN 15 MINUTES** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 23 January 2024
by Julie Bisland Jan. 23, 2024

Jan. 23, 2024

**ON IN 15 MINUTES** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 23 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/rQDFE * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/3vmwyb24 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/3vmwyb24__;!!PtGJab4!_NkZanO…> 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, 23 January 2024 at 1600 UTC
by Berry Cobb Jan. 23, 2024

Jan. 23, 2024

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for our call today, on Tuesday, 23 January 2024 at 16:00 UTC. Apologies for the delay in sending out the agenda delayed. Thank you and we look forward to seeing you virtually. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry, and Julie ---------- Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #116 Proposed Agenda 23 January 2024 1. Welcome and Chair Updates 2. COR Sunset/Definition discussion 3. Privacy/Proxy charter questions 4. Designated Agent charter questions 5. AOB

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 23 January 2024
by Julie Bisland Jan. 22, 2024

Jan. 22, 2024

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 23 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/rQDFE * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/3vmwyb24 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/3vmwyb24__;!!PtGJab4!_NkZanO…> 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 16 Jan at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 16, 2024

Jan. 16, 2024

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, 23 January 2024 at 1600 UTC. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry and Julie ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: None captured. Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #114 Proposed Agenda 16 January 2024 Notes: 1. Welcome and Chair updates * SOI update: Eric Rokobauer (RrSG - Squarespace) -- I am with a new registrar member. I've changed companies. I now work for Squarespace, primarily operating as a retail registrar. See: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Eric+Rokobauer+SOI. * Chair update: there arer only 6 or 7 more meetings for us between now and ICANN79 and our goal is to get all the change of registrant things wrapped up, and maybe even tidy up some loose ends that we had discussed previously. * The other thing is for Compliance to get back to us, and they should have the request of Sarah's done sometime this week, so we should hear from them shortly after that -- maybe next week or the week after that. 2. Review updates to Preliminary Recommendations – see attached slides, starting at slide 3. Discussion – Slides 7, 8, and 9: * Questions: What is the Prior Registrant expected to do? What are we trying to achieve? It only causes issues down the line. * Both these processes (TAC issuance and Change of Registrant) should remain separate. * I like the idea, but don’t know if we can actually implement this. There's probably a change of registrar, and that the current registrar is not going to know that. * In the case of domain name theft this can be easily bypassed. * We'd want to probably leave room in this if we were to leave it as is for there to be exceptions, or for this to be operating within the contractual agreement with the registrant. * What we are hearing is this is probably not operationally effective or needed. * The most critical part of that notification that would hypothetically go to the Prior Registrant is instructions on how to take action. Allowing another means if there was an improper change of registrant to catch that and say, before the TAC is used to contact the registrar and say, this wasn't me. However, the TAC probably should not be in that notification to the prior registrar. * According to the RFC the TAC should not be retained by the generator. It should just be sent to the person who's getting it and not retained. It's kind of odd that this would come up here, because this should be covered somewhere where we talk about the TAC, and it should say that should be sent to the requester, and nowhere else. And so this 3.1, if it would be included, should seem redundant, * So, you're right that no one should be storing the TAC. * If there is some sort of evidence of improper change of registrant maybe then there should be some sort of additional actions to be taken, but if there’s nothing improper this could be a security risk. * Thought we were trying to reduce notifications. Multiple notifications could cause problems or be ignored. * It sounds like the Working Group doesn’t support this. * We could add a preamble, “unless otherwise defined in the agreement between the registrar and the registrar.” * Continue to think about if there is some kind of due diligence, rather than sending something to the prior registrant, if there's something more that the registrar should do when there is a case of a transfer. 3. Continue Definitions discussion – see attached Primer and slides 11, 12, and 13: Discussion: * We need to get this resolved before we can move on. * The one thing that is important is the email address. I think if that changes that should trigger notification because that sort of can assume * a little bit of a control on the domain name itself, where the TAC is being sent. * Change of email is an attack vector – a way to gain control. We can send a notification of a change of email to the registrant and that can be a trigger. Material change only applies to the email address. * Looking at the last bullet (slide 11), is “material change” still relevant and worth incorporating into Change of Control? Or looking at the second bullet, is it up to the registrar to determine Change of Control? * I think it depends on the business model of the registrars. It’s important to recognize that there are registrars with completely different business models. * As a corporate registrar, we don't just focus on email. The change of registrant incorporates the ownership details. So when we're looking at the name and organization that is actually quite significant from a corporate perspective as well. * We can come back to the concept of the anchor method – does it make sense that that is email? * You don't always know if it's a change of control prior, or even right after a change. * If the email does change are we saying something should occur? * What is a material change and what triggers a notification? If email changes should there be two notifications – one to the prior email and one to the current email? That needs to be decided as well. * We are getting rid of the lock, does material change still need to exist? Is it fit for purpose for notifications? * Why do we have to send a notification to the new email address? * One of the benefits of sending to the new email could be if there was a typo so it got sent to someone else. * It sounds like material change is still fit for the purpose of a notification. It sounds like there are reasons for sending to the prior and the current. * Should the data automatically generate a notification and, if so, what’s the harm in that? * More notifications could just be considered spam. * Should these notifications be changed from a MUST to a MAY – that is, up to the registrar to decide? * It should be the registrar’s business model. * If it changes from MUST to MAY it’s no longer enforceable. * In favor of keeping the same policy for all registrars. The internal routine could be based on the business model. * If you change to MAY all the problems with privacy/proxy/Designated Agent are gone. * Do we need a Change of Registrant policy? Something to think about and take back to your Stakeholder groups. And if it goes away, what is missing?

1 0

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 16 January 2024
by Julie Bisland Jan. 16, 2024

Jan. 16, 2024

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/qwDFE> (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