- GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda - TPR WG Meeting #96 - 11 July 2023
by Caitlin Tubergen July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 11 July at 16:00 UTC. 🛎️ Outstanding Action Items 🛎️ 1. Working Group to review updated text for questions f5, and g3, g4, and g5 in advance of next meeting on Tuesday, 11 July. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrUdhnGiftP5CGHvuOoHqKPOhGnU4… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRr…> andhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3e… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmo…> Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin -- Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #96 Proposed Agenda 11 July 2023 1. Welcome and Chair updates 2. Discussion of Charter Question i1 ICANN-Approved Transfer (Bulk Transfers): i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-iss…>, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en> be revisited or removed in certain circumstances? 1. Overview of numbers related to ICANN-approved Bulk Transfers from 2018 – 2022 2. Questions for consideration based on initial reactions from Working Group * The $50,000 fee is a requirement from BTAPPAs that existed in a pre-New gTLD world? Accordingly, what fee considerations (if any) should be made now that bulk transfers could involve multiple TLDs? * Are there instances where the $50,000 fee(s) should be waived? (Examples could include involuntary bulk transfer arising from involuntary bulk transfer resulting from RAA terminations). * Should tiered fees depending on volume be considered in ICANN-approved bulk transfers? * Should additional carve-outs be considered for involuntary transfers - for example - premium names? 3. AOB

2 1

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 11 July 2023
by Julie Bisland July 10, 2023

July 10, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> * Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/V4GCDg * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/2eb4cfva [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2eb4cfva__;!!PtGJab4!9-0WPku…> 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

ICANN77 Policy Outcomes Report is now available
by Terri Agnew July 5, 2023

July 5, 2023

Dear all, The ICANN77 Policy Outcomes Report is now available for download: https://go.icann.org/outcomes77 The report will also be published in Thursday’s Community Digest. Happy reading! Kindest regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 11 July 2023
by Julie Bisland June 27, 2023

June 27, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> * Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/V4GCDg * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/2eb4cfva 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, 27 June 2023
by Julie Bisland June 27, 2023

June 27, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 27 June 2023 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/VYGCDg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, and chat.) * Transcript * Agenda and Notes/Action Items As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call as a Panelist, observers can join as an Attendee to listen. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/P4aUCQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #95 on 27 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 27, 2023

June 27, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be in two weeks on Tuesday, 11 July at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 1. Re: Recap Outcomes from ICANN77 Meeting on TEAC and TDRP -- charter questions f5, and g3, g4, and g5 -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrUdhnGiftP5CGHvuOoHqKPOhGnU4… and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1r…; WG members to review the text in the two documents and provide comments in advance of the next meeting on Tuesday, 11 July. 2. Re: Bulk Transfers – WG to review charter questions in advance of the discussion at the next meeting: * i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances * i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #95 Proposed Agenda 27 June 2023 1. Welcome and Chair updates 2. Recap Outcomes from ICANN77 Meeting * WG to review draft Charter Question Responses to Remaining TDRP Charter Questions and updated TEAC response f5) Do telephone communications provide a sufficient “paper trail” for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer “undo” based on failure by a TEAC to respond? See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrUdhnGiftP5CGHvuOoHqKPOhGnU4… Proposed language: “ [if the primary TEAC communication channel is designated as a phone number or other method], the verbal/non-email communication must be accompanied by an email communication to the TEAC.” g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered? See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1r… “Draft Preliminary Recommendation: The Working Group recommends the GNSO request an Issues Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of (i) expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and (ii) creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. In making this recommendation, the Working Group recognizes that if such an effort were ultimately adopted by the GNSO Council, this request could be resource-intensive and will require the Council to consider the appropriate timing and priority against other policy efforts.” * Steinar -- Question: Will the recommendation result in a new PDP? Answer: It could, but the GNSO will have the final say. If the PDP is initiated it would be a new separate effort. It would also need to be prioritized so difficult to determine the timing. During the scoping of the charter phase the duration would be mapped out. No way to predict how long the policy effort would be, but could easily be a minimum of 18 months. * Sarah -- Question: We don’t have a transfer undo that the registrar can follow? Answer: Roger – We discuss that and never agreed on a recommendation. g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? g5) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization? See also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1r… ACTION ITEM Re: Recap Outcomes from ICANN77 Meeting on TEAC and TDRP charter questions f5, and g3, g4, and g5 -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrUdhnGiftP5CGHvuOoHqKPOhGnU4… and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1r…; WG members to review the text in the two documents and provide comments in advance of the next meeting on Tuesday, 11 July. 3. ICANN-Approved Transfer (Bulk Transfers) – see attached slides. Work Plan: * We are on meeting #95. * ICANN-approved transfers to start at the next meeting. * New project package to be released for Council July meeting. * Overview of Current Policy Requirements * Transfer Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en>, Section I.B – slides 3-6. * Overview of Final Issues Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…> * pp. 49-51 * ICANN org input * Public comments received * Charter Questions * i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances * i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers? * Early input received * Initial Working Group Reactions Discussion: * Catherine: Not sure if the suggested fee is reasonable. * Theo: Still work to be done. More and more difficult to do for most parties. Lacking the possibility of a reseller to transfer in bulk. * Roger: Sounds like there could be a partial bulk move – could see what that looks like. * Owen: Consider about going after acquisitions and fees; re: resellers – that is happening now because it is not prohibited. Need to make sure there are a basic set of minimum requirements (registrar suggestion in public comments). * Roger: Security recommendations hamper bulk transfers. * Rick: Re: RySG comment on fees – haven’t discussed what that fee structure might be changed to. The challenges regarding de-credited registrars would be mitigated if they were handled more quickly, but this is not a registry position. * Roger: Heard discussed – when a portfolio is moved (2000+ names) there is a balance that needs to happen. Might be some bigger tweaks. We can dig into these really well. * Jothan: Since 2008 the concept of premium names has come into play. We want to factor in that there may be names that come over that may be premium that may come into play for pricing. * Roger: Something to consider – any wording to suggest? There are new issues today that we weren’t looking at in 2008. Key is to look at the two charter questions for the meeting on 11 July. ACTION ITEM re: Bulk Transfers – WG to review charter questions in advance of the discussion at the next meeting: * i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances * i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers? 4. AOB

1 0

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 27 June 2023
by Julie Bisland June 27, 2023

June 27, 2023

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VYGCDg Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 27 June 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> * Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/VYGCDg * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/yc5bsvhd [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yc5bsvhd__;!!PtGJab4!85s4Iu5…> 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 - TPR WG Meeting #95 - 27 June 2023
by Caitlin Tubergen June 26, 2023

June 26, 2023

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 27 June at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin -- Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #95 Proposed Agenda 27 June 2023 1. Welcome and Chair updates 2. Recap Outcomes from ICANN77 Meeting * WG to review draft Charter Question Responses to Remaining TDRP Charter Questions and updated TEAC response * f5) Do telephone communications provide a sufficient “paper trail” for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer “undo” based on failure by a TEAC to respond? * g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered? * g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? * g5) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization? 3. ICANN-Approved Transfer (Bulk Transfers) * Overview of Current Policy Requirements * Transfer Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en>, Section I.B * Overview of Final Issues Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-iss…> * pp. 49-51 * ICANN org input * Public comments received * Charter Questions * i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances * i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers? * Early input received * Initial Working Group Reactions 4. AOB

1 0

**REMINDER**Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 27 June 2023
by Julie Bisland June 26, 2023

June 26, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 27 June 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFS…> Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6__;!!PtGJab4!v…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call: * Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> * Visit the Wiki Agenda meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/VYGCDg * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/yc5bsvhd [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yc5bsvhd__;!!PtGJab4!85s4Iu5…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Staff will promote members and alternates to panelist once joined. * Chat: Please select Everyone so everyone can see your chat, and so it’s captured in the recording. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. * Alternate assignments will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding 3 Zs (zzz) before your name and add, your affiliation - alternate after your name. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting at ICANN77 15 June 1445 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 15, 2023

June 15, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be in two weeks on Tuesday, 27 June at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 1. Re: Charter question f5: WG to consider the feasibility of the recommendation of email to “start the clock” for the 24-hour response timeframe. 2. Re: Charter question g3: WG should consider the two types of disputes – inside and outside the policy – and provide additional rationale/comments. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting at ICANN77 Proposed Agenda 15 June 2023 1. Chair Welcome * In this meeting we’ll summarize the WG’s accomplishments since ICANN76 on the TEAC and TDRP charter questions. * We won’t meet next week – next meeting is in two weeks on Tuesday, 27 June. 2. Overview of Working Group's preliminary agreements related to Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) – see attached slides f2/f3) The time frame (4 hours) for registrars to respond to communications via the TEAC channel has been raised as a concern by the Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team and in survey responses. Does this timeframe need to be adjusted? DRAFT REC: The working group is recommending that the policy must be revised to update the required timeframe for initial response from 4 hours to 24 hours / 1 calendar day. f4) Is additional guidance needed to define a “reasonable period of time” after which registrars should be expected to use a standard dispute resolution process? DRAFT REC: The working group recommends that the Transfer Policy must be updated to state that the initial communication to a TEAC is expected to occur no more than [30 days] following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain. DRAFT REC: Once a Gaining Registrar has provided an initial non-automated response to a TEAC communication as described in Section I.A.4.6.3 of the Transfer Policy, the Gaining Registrar must provide additional, substantive updates by email to the Losing Registrar every 72 hours / 3 calendar days until work to resolve the issue is complete. These updates must include specific actions taken by the Gaining Registrar to work towards resolution. f5) Do telephone communications provide a sufficient “paper trail” for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer “undo” based on failure by a TEAC to respond? Should the option to communicate by phone be eliminated? Is an authoritative “system of record” for TEAC communications warranted? If so, what are the requirements for such a system? DRAFT REC: The working group recommends that initial communication to the TEAC described in Section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy must either be in the form of email or be accompanied by an email communication to the TEAC. This email “starts the clock” for the 24-hours response timeframe specified in Preliminary Recommendation #G2-1. The Gaining Registrar receiving the TEAC communication must respond by email within 24 hours. Discussion: * Luc: Concerned about recommendation for email contact for TEAC. Don’t have the capacity – could miss an email. WG can look at that. * Sarah: Thanks for raising that very good point. Luc raises a good point - I was thinking from the opposite perspective, a phone call doesn't create paper trail and that makes me nervous, but email is hard to stay on top of in a different way than phone. ACTION ITEM: WG to consider the feasibility of the recommendation of email to “start the clock” for the 24-hour response timeframe. 3. Overview of Working Group's preliminary agreements related to Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) -- see attached slides g1) Is there enough information available to determine if the TDRP is an effective mechanism for resolving disputes between registrars in cases of alleged violations of the IRTP? If not, what additional information is needed to make this determination? WG noted that small number of filings does not, alone, indicate an issue with the TDRP - the scope of the TDRP is very limited, and the WG believes it is an effective mechanism to address the types of disputes it was designed to address: alleged violations of the Transfer Policy g2) Are the existing informational materials about the TDRP sufficient to ensure that registrars understand the process and the requirements for filing a dispute, including the information they need to give to the dispute resolution provider? * WG noted the TDRP requirements are sufficiently clear and do not need adjustments at this time * WG noted that for requirements that change as a result of new policy recommendations need to be drafted in a clear and user-friendly way to assist parties, providers, and panelists g4/g5) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? Are the requirements appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization? WG noted some TDRP evidentiary requirements need to be updated based on EPDP - Temp Spec - Phase 1, Rec. 27, including outdated terminology, as well as Transfer Policy Review WG Phase 1(a) - removal of Gaining FOA 4. Open discussion with Community Participants: what are the pros and cons of recommending a transfer dispute resolution for registrants? -- see attached slides g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered? * Registrants who believe a violation of the transfer policy has occurred currently have 3 options: * Request registrar to resolve the issue informally with other registrar * If informal resolution is unsuccessful, convince registrar to file TDRP * Go to court * Some WG members have noted this is not ideal for registrants and believe a new mechanism may be needed Is there support or not for a recommendation for the GNSO Council to request an Issue Report? Pros: * Provides an additional option for registrants who believe a transfer policy violation has occurred and: * Registrar does not wish to file a TDRP * Registrar is unresponsive * Potential time + cost savings Cons: * New mechanism could result in increased abuse and gaming * TDRP requires a lot of documentary evidence that the registrant likely does not have * Some have proposed new mechanism to address more than transfer policy violations (such as domain theft), which would introduce a lot of complexity (property laws across jurisdictions, such as bona fide purchaser laws) Discussion: * Theo: If a registrar doesn’t wish to open TDRP there’s nothing a registrant can do. It shouldn’t only be up to the registrar. Makes sense to widen the scope of the TDRP to include a filing from a registrant. * Steinar, At-Large: Expect that there will be some tuning between registrars when implementing the new policy. During this time there might be glitches and the registrant may not have support from the registrar. Don’t like that the only option is to go to court. It is not an easy process. Suggest there should be a way for the registrant to initiate a transfer dispute within the TDRP. * Roger: We made quite a few changes to security measures in Phase 1a, which should reduce disputes. * Owen (not a Registrar position): Violations of policy are already addressed. Don’t think registrants should have access since they are likely to bring in disputes that are outside the transfer policy; also courts may be expensive but the TDRP is not free --- it can be expensive too. Registrant can also bring a complaint to ICANN Compliance. * Zak: Transfer Dispute Policy: Limited scope has allowed a more successful mechanism – the informal dispute process. BC’s interest in the Transfer Policy is from a registrant’s perspective and from that perspective it’s a flaw that the Transfer Policy doesn’t have a registrant option. Simply: the registrant would like to be able to initiate a dispute. As to the registrant not having the evidence, but it could request that from the registrar. Two possible disputes: 1) violation of the policy; 2) domain name theft/hi-jacking. In the second type it may not be useful or feasible to sue the registrar, and it would be very expensive. There should be an alternative option. It might be complicated but still possible nonetheless. This is a WG so this is not in scope, but it could recommend an Issue Report could consider a new dispute mechanism for registrants. * Theo: Good discussion around support for a registrant initiated dispute. Even with this the issues of expense will still exist. * Holida, ICANN Compliance: ICANN’s authority extends to the enforcement of the requirements outlined in the agreements it has with contracted parties and ICANN consensus policies. If a failure to comply with the agreement or policy is found, Compliance addresses the identified noncompliance with the registrar, but will have no contractual authority to return the domain name or instruct the registrar to return the domain name to previous registrant. Compliance still encourages registrants to file complaint with us, so we investigate and require registrars to take corrective action in case of noncompliance so instance of noncompliance does not continue/repeat. In some instances, registrar may take its own initiative and assist registrant in getting the domain back, but it’s not obligated by the current policy/RAA. * Roger: Sounds like there is agreement to provide a recommendation to request an Issue Report on a registrant-initiated transfer dispute policy. ACTION ITEM: WG should consider the two types of disputes – inside and outside the policy – and provide additional rationale/comments. 5. Closing

1 0