- GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #93 - 30 May at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 30, 2023

May 30, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 06 June at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: ACTION ITEMS re: Charter question g3 and additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP: 1. WG members to suggest additional use cases. 2. Staff to suggest in responding to the charter question the WG could a) formulate a question for feedback from the community and b) could recommend that another group could look at a registrant-initiated transfer dispute mechanism. ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBk… and note anything that might be missing or require clarification. NOTE: The document is set for editing – please use suggestion mode so that changes are highlighted. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #93 Proposed Agenda 30 May 2023 1. Welcome and Chair Updates * Work Plan: Reminder – on meeting #93 and on track to get through the remaining TDRP charter questions – good to get community input during the ICANN77 session. Following that clean up anything on TEAC/TDRP, then go into ICANN-approved transfers. 2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call 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? Summary: No new recommendations. Respond to charter question by: * Summarizing the limited data reviewed by the WG (published TDRP cases) and note why it is limited (many disputes occur outside of the TDRP) * Summarizing how some limits of TDRP do not necessarily indicate a problem with the dispute mechanism itself, but the limited scope of the policy * Note that the WG believes the TDRP is effective for the limited scope of issues it is designed to address Discussion: * At-Large has indicated support for the registrants to have a way into the TDRP in cases where the process isn’t followed. * The tough part is that with the TDRP there has to be a clear policy violation – although most transfer dispute issues are not policy related. This WG is considering whether to make a recommendation to do something outside of this group. See charter question g3. g2) The ADNDRC reported to the IRTP Part D Working Group that in some of the cases it processed, appellees and appellants failed to provide sufficient information to support arbitration. Is this an issue that needs to be examined further in the context of the policy? 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? Summary: No new recommendations. Respond to charter question by: * Summarizing the data reviewed by the WG ((i) the text of the TDRP relating to the documentary information required to be provided by filing and responding parties, (iii) the specific cases published on the TDRP providers’ websites, (iii) the existing information ICANN org provides on its web pages related to transfer disputes and transfer-related issues.)) * Summarizing how the WG group concluded that the required information to be filed by complainants and respondents is sufficiently clear and no conspicuous gaps exist. It is ultimately on the parties to provide evidence to support their case. The WG did note, however, that future updates to documentary evidence as a result of Rec. 27 must be drafted in a way that is understandable to parties, providers, and panelists. * Note that this may need to be reviewed in the future as more cases are filed to see if any gaps exist. 3. Charter Question g3 (draft scenarios) -- Use Cases from IRTP D Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filef…>, please see pp. 41-42 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? If there is evidence to support that there is a problem, is a new dispute resolution process the best solution? * For example, if the working group believes that domain name hijacking is a significant problem that is not being addressed sufficiently, could the need be met by focusing on protections to prevent improper inter-registrant and inter-registrar transfers from occurring? As a reminder: * The IRTP Part D recommended not to develop dispute options for registrants. * The working group must provide a clear rationale if it believes that further work is needed on this issue. Use Cases * Use Cases from IRTP D Final Report, please see pp. 41-42 * Two registrant claimants dispute to be the Registered Name Holder immediately prior to or directly following an inter-registrar transfer (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role) * Two registrant claimants dispute who is the Registered Name Holder of a domain name without an inter-registrant transfer having taken place. There are a number of reasons for such a situation to occur, including – but not limited to – a contractor registering a domain for a client, two business partners splitting, admin contact leave a company but remains listed in the Whois database. (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role) * Any other use cases from the WG that need to be considered? Recommendation #9. The WG recommends that staff, in close cooperation with the IRTP Part C implementation review team, ensures that the IRTP Part C inter-registrant transfer recommendations are implemented and monitor whether dispute resolution mechanisms are necessary to cover the Use Cases in Annex C. Once such a policy is implemented, its functioning should be closely monitored, and if necessary, an Issues Report be called for to assess the need for an inter-registrant transfer dispute policy. Discussion: * Noticed in the two use cases – is that there is no Compliance role. This isn’t going against Policy so there’s no Compliance role. If there’s a gap it’s between identifying an issue, recognizing Policy hasn’t been broken, see what is the next step for registrars – gap between registrars agreeing that they don’t agree, and going to court. Is that the right gap? * It is often the case that registrants unfamiliar with Policy will realize their domain is transferred and do anything they can do to get the name back. From the chat: “additionally, transfer disputes often are raised but the issues are things covered by other policy, such as ERRP or EDDP * ie registrant fails to pay to renew, lazy attention to domain generally and later sees domain at different registrar and claims bad transfer because they do not understand the rules” Want to make sure other policy is followed before we create a new policy. * There’s more than just the transfer policy that affects a name. * Don’t want to encourage overuse on simple transfer issues, such as for non-payment. * Think it would be helpful for staff to understand: One thing to open of transfer policy to former registrants; it’s another thing to have ICANN handle compliance for non-transfer policy issues --- need a panel that had experience with property law, potentially very complicated. Does the WG want to recommend a new dispute mechanism to address a gap – what would it be, what would be the gap/issue to address? * Steinar, ALAC: The gaining registrar says I have captured all the information (followed the transfer policy process) but registrant disagrees – only option is to go to court right now. That is the gap. * Any other use cases – Zak? Is there something lighter weight than going to court? Also the jurisdictional issues are daunting. What wording should we provide in our Report for a recommendation? * Registries don’t have much of an interest, but rather than making a registrant-involved process limited to transfers, but could be broader than that --- where registrants have complaints about registrar practices. * That could be well beyond the scope of this group – not sure what group would drive that. * Staff could 1) send a note to the list re: use cases and 2) suggest in responding to the charter question the WG could formulate a question for feedback from the community and could recommend that another group could look at a registrant-initiated transfer dispute mechanism. ACTION ITEMS re: Charter question g3 and additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP: 1. WG members to suggest additional use cases. 2. Staff to suggest in responding to the charter question the WG could a) formulate a question for feedback from the community and b) could recommend that another group could look at a registrant-initiated transfer dispute mechanism. 4. Charter Question g4 -- Note: Please review Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the TDRP<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en> in advance of the meeting g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? Discussion: * Think if you start with a TDRP and you use as little personal data as possible, would think a panelist would have a reasonable need for personal data. Put this back to the TDRP provider to make sure the data protection law is being followed. * Address/location may be relevant to determine jurisdiction or physical notice of process (if required). 5. Charter Question g5 -- Note: Please review Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the TDRP<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en> in advance of the meeting 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? ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBk… and note anything that might be missing or require clarification. NOTE: The document is set for editing – please use suggestion mode so that changes are highlighted. 6. AOB

1 0

ICANN77 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download!
by Julie Bisland May 30, 2023

May 30, 2023

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN77 is now available for download at http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!9ZW…>. Happy reading! Best Regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 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

**STARTS IN 15 MINUTES** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 30 May 2023
by Julie Bisland May 30, 2023

May 30, 2023

**STARTS IN 15 MINUTES** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 30 May 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/-YLKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/8rrs9a78 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/8rrs9a78__;!!PtGJab4!7blezbK…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Staff will promote members and alternates to panelist once joined. * Chat: Please select Everyone so everyone can see your chat, and so it’s captured in the recording. * If unable to attend, members must communicate their alternate replacement using this google form<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…>. * Alternate assignments will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding 3 Zs (zzz) before your name and add, your affiliation - alternate after your name. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed agenda for meeting #93 on Tuesday 30 May 2023 at 16:00 UTC
by Caitlin Tubergen May 29, 2023

May 29, 2023

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 30 May at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin --------------------------------------------------------- Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #93 Proposed Agenda 30 May 2023 1. Welcome and Chair updates 2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call 3. Charter Question g3 (draft scenarios) • Use Cases from IRTP D Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_46639/irtp-d-final-25s…>, please see pp. 41-42 * Two registrant claimants dispute to be the Registered Name Holder immediately prior to or directly following an inter-registrar transfer (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role) * Two registrant claimants dispute who is the Registered Name Holder of a domain name without an inter-registrant transfer having taken place. There are a number of reasons for such a situation to occur, including – but not limited to – a contractor registering a domain for a client, two business partners splitting, admin contact leave a company but remains listed in the Whois database. (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role) * Any other use cases from the WG that need to be considered? 4. Charter Question g4 • Note: Please review Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the TDRP<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en> in advance of the meeting 5. Charter Question g5 • Note: Please review Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the TDRP<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en> in advance of the meeting 6. AOB

2 1

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 30 May 2023
by Terri Agnew May 26, 2023

May 26, 2023

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 30 May 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/-YLKDQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/8rrs9a78 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/8rrs9a78__;!!PtGJab4!7blezbK…> 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 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland May 25, 2023

May 25, 2023

Dear all, With ICANN77<https://meetings.icann.org/en/icann77> just around the corner, please take a moment to read the information below for a seamless and successful meeting. REGISTER NOW! DEADLINE TO REGISTER IS 07 June 2023! * Sign into Your ICANN Account or create an account here<https://account.icann.org/login>. * Register by selecting the Meeting Registration tile. * Click on the Registration link. Before creating your schedule, please read this page carefully: https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation. If participating on-site, please read the Health and Safety page<https://meetings.icann.org/en/77healthandsafety>. CREATE YOUR MEETING SCHEDULE * Access the ICANN77 schedule here<https://icann77.sched.com/>. The schedule shows up with blank circular radial buttons to the left of each session. Hover over the radial button and click “ADD TO MY SCHEDULE” or just click to add the checkmark. * Once you’ve selected all sessions, click the My Schedule link in the lower left corner or hover over your profile and select My Schedule. * Click the Phone icon * In the bottom section, “Export Calendar”, click the link next to “My Schedule”. When the .ics is exported, add it to the appropriate calendar. OR, after exporting, drag and drop the .ics file into your calendar. * Please remember, for security purposes, participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times. There will be no calendar invitations sent, as the meeting schedule allows you to download all sessions of interest to your individual calendars Review the Participation Tools and update Zoom * All sessions will use Zoom rooms. Access details are available 24hrs prior. * Visit the Participation Tools page<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation> for links to download the latest version of Zoom for access to the ICANN Meeting sessions. * Please see the ICANN Meeting Virtual Participation How-To Guide for more information on how to get the most out of the virtual meeting tools. Links to Bookmark ICANN77 Meeting Schedule<https://icann77.sched.com/> GNSO ICANN77 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/_oZXDg> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/nIJXDg> For all GNSO meeting-related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 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

ICANN77 Policy Outlook Report is now available for download!
by Julie Bisland May 24, 2023

May 24, 2023

Dear all, The ICANN77 Policy Outlook Report is now available: https://go.icann.org/outlook77 Thank you! Kind regards, Julie

1 0

June, July and August 2023 calls | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG
by Terri Agnew May 24, 2023

May 24, 2023

**We are sending in advance to get dates on everyone’s calendar. Dear all, The calls for June, July and August 2023 for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG are listed below. The calls take place on Tuesdays at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes., please be sure to download them as “recurring” vs. a one-time event to ensure all the dates show up on your calendar. * Tuesday, 27 June 2023 * Tuesday, 11 July 2023 * Tuesday 25 July 2023 * Tuesday, 01 August 2023 – see attached .ics for the August calls * Tuesday, 08 August 2023 * Tuesday, 15 August 2023 * Tuesday, 22 August 2023 * Tuesday, 29 August 2023 Future invitations will be sent out closer to the date of the call. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Transfer Policy Review PDP WG
by ICANN Policy Calendar May 24, 2023

May 24, 2023

Meeting: Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Pattern: Weekly on Tuesday’s: 01 August – 29 August 2023 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes Alternate replacement confirmations – Members who are unable to attend, please complete the google form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H595xH4EFgaR3ydOr-1o9BLAVGUI…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing you. Join the Zoom Webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/95363727469?pwd=N3A3OWFSaTlUME9wZzlGajk5VUI3QT09 Passcode: @TP/^*4wg# 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> * Wiki agenda page (2023): https://community.icann.org/x/Gow-DQ * Time conversion link: https://tinyurl.com/ykevzvaw ONLY for Members & Alternates: * Please join via the above Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to Panelist * Alternate assignments will be posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ>. * Members and alternates replacing members, please select Everyone when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Please rename your line in Zoom by adding THREE Zs “zzz” before your name, and in parentheses, (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. For Audio only: One tap mobile: US: +19294362866,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# or +13017158592,,95363727469#,,,,*7490739013# Webinar ID: 953 6372 7469 Passcode: 7490739013 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acdLFXPLp6

1 0

Notes and action items: TPR WG Meeting #92 - 23 May at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 23, 2023

May 23, 2023

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 30 May at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: Re A possible registrant-initiated dispute resolution mechanism -- staff to present the use cases from IRTP-D for WG consideration; WG members to review and add use cases that might be missing. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #92 Proposed Agenda 23 May 2023 1. Welcome and Chair Updates * Looks like we will have pretty good availability among WG members in August, so we'll be going ahead and scheduling weekly meetings throughout August. * Participation: We've been noticing that overall attendance on calls is declining and participation among the different represented groups is uneven. Would be helpful to do a refresh of the membership and/or a self-evaluation survey to see how folks are doing and if they have feedback on how we can work better. Typically the refresh and the survey would happen around a key milestone, such as delivery of an Initial Report, but since that is some time off, this group might want to think about doing it sooner. Reminder that the door is open and members/alternates can come to the chair or the staff at any time with feedback or suggestions on how to keep participation up (as well as anything else they want to share). * Work Plan: A few session left before ICANN77 – focus on wrapping up our work on TDRP; next topic is ICANN-approved transfers. No open action items at this time. 2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call – see attached slides 4-5. f1) Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism? If so, what data is needed? Summary: No new recommendations. Respond to charter question by: * Summarizing the data reviewed by the WG * Identifying other types of information that would potentially support policy making in this group and in future review * Summarizing limits to obtaining and analyzing this information f6/f7) The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team indicated that there are several factors that make a Registry Operator’s obligation to “undo” a transfer under Section 6.4 of the Transfer Policy challenging: 1. Registry Operators do not have access to the designated TEACs for each Registrar, making validation of an undo request nearly impossible. 2. There is no way for Registry Operators to independently verify that a Registrar did not respond within the required time frame or at all since Registry Operators are not a party to, or copied on, communications between the Registrar TEACs. 3. Transfer “undo” requests associated with the failure of a TEAC to respond are unilateral so there is no validation required prior to a Registry Operator taking action. This has, on occasion, led to a “he said”, “she said” scenario. 4. Follow on to f6 iii., if the policy were to be updated to allow for some level of validation by the Registry Operator prior to taking action, the requirement to “undo” a transfer within 5 calendar days of receiving an TEAC undo request leaves little to no time to attempt to validate the request prior to taking the action. To what extent are changes to the policy needed to address these concerns? Are there other pain points for Registry Operators that need to be considered in the review of the policy in this regard? Summary: Item i: Policy staff is collecting additional information. Item ii, iii, iv: Recommend no change. Response to charter question will summarize the deliberations. Discussion: * Re: item I – suggest “making validation of an undo request quite difficult” instead of “nearly impossible.” Don’t want to suggest RO’s aren’t doing validation. Can’t change the charter question but in response we can note that nuance. 3. Charter Question g1 – see attached slides 7-8. See also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i6tLO_qbSa-ace0BnKaAn7voP1UA1RjYlrRo2Zn…. 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? Additional Data Point: Forum reported that it received 11 TDRP filings in total, with 9 decisions and 2 withdrawals. 5 of the 9 decisions were filed prior to December 1, 2016 when publication was first required. To Discuss: As a reminder, this question focuses specifically on whether there is enough information to evaluate if TDRP is an effective mechanism for resolving disputes between registrars in cases of alleged violations of the IRTP. We will discuss proposed recommendation to improve dispute resolution options as part of a different charter question (g3). Is it sufficient to answer this charter question but summarizing the information/data that the WG used to support its deliberations on the TDRP, while noting that there are limitations to the available information about the broader context of how issues are resolved (or not) using the available mechanisms? Discussion: * Question: We have info about the low number, but do we know why it is very low number of cases? Is it panel fee the reason? Answer: The dispute mechanism is efficiently looking at if someone broke the policy; a high-jacking typically doesn’t break the policy itself – the bigger issues are outside of the policy. * Hope that registrars could give some input on this (why number of cases are so low). * In answering the charter question we’ll say that we did have some data and decided we didn’t need any new policy recommendations. 4. Charter Question g2 – see attached slide 9 and also: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en, section 3 Dispute Procedures, 3.1 Registrar files a Request for Enforcement with a Dispute Resolution Provider, and 3.2 The Respondent shall have seven (7) calendar days from receipt of the Complaint to prepare a Response to the Complaint ("Response"). g2) The ADNDRC reported to the IRTP Part D Working Group that in some of the cases it processed, appellees and appellants failed to provide sufficient information to support arbitration. Is this an issue that needs to be examined further in the context of the policy? 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? Discussion questions: * Is the information in the policy clear? Does it need to be adjusted? * As noted above, adjustments are expected following conversation of Rec. 27 Re: Rec 27 see the working document for rec 27, wave 1 for TEAC and TDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GTtkEPJvYNMW27UaJZAGQlSb1BOYRhO7rSbFyb_… 5. TDRP section 3.2.4 provides that a panel appointed by a TDRP provider will “review all applicable documentation and compare registrant/contact data with that contained within the authoritative Whois database and reach a conclusion not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of Response.” This provision relies on comparison with the "authoritative Whois database," which does not have a clear analogue in the new Registration Data Policy. [Notes from TPR Meeting on 25 April 2023: Some members of the WG noted that TDRP section 3.2.4 could be stated at a higher level to ask the Panel to review the documentation provided to determine whether a violation of the Transfer Policy has occurred. Support Staff has proposed updated language on what this could look like. Other WG members noted that the Panel should request the redacted registration data from the Gaining Registrar, similar to how this is done in a UDRP proceeding. Support Staff has also proposed language so that the WG could see how this could look.] Discussion: * There’s no requirement that the responding registrar must respond to the proceeding. So no compliance issue. It would be more effective to have the UDRP-type approach – would be a compliance breech if the registrar didn’t respond – best way to do this would be through the UDRP-style verification process. * Leaning toward a UDRP-type of process would be more consistent – it works for UDRP and should work here. * Once the case law evolve the evidentiary evidence becomes clearer, but that hasn’t happened here. Can include that in the rationale. This would be the suggested language from Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBk… [[DRAFT ADDED STEP: The Provider shall submit a verification request to the sponsoring Registrar. The verification request will include a request to Lock the domain name.]] [[DRAFT ADDED STEP: Within two (2) business days of receiving the Provider's verification request, the sponsoring Registrar shall provide the information requested in the verification request and confirm that a Lock of the domain name has been applied. The Lock shall remain in place through the remaining Pendency of the TDRP proceeding.]] 5. Charter Question g3 (time permitting) – see attached slides 10, 11, and 12. g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: 1. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? 2. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered? To Discuss: Is there evidence to support that there is a problem to solve? For example evidence of the following: * Frequent instances of registrants asking registrars to file TDRP cases, and registrars refusing to do so due to time and cost, despite compelling evidence supporting the registrant’s case? * Frequent instances of attempts at informal resolution where there is compelling evidence of an improper transfer, but the Gaining Registrar is refusing to reverse the transfer absent indemnification, resulting in an unsatisfactory outcome? * Frequent instances of registrants reporting to registrars that they cannot access a court of mutual jurisdiction to address stolen domains and/or improper transfers? * Other examples of significant issues that may give rise to discussing a registrant option further? If there is evidence to support that there is a problem, is a new dispute resolution process the best solution? * For example, if the working group believes that domain name hijacking is a significant problem that is not being addressed sufficiently, could the need be met by focusing on protections to prevent improper inter-registrant and inter-registrar transfers from occurring? As a reminder: * The IRTP Part D recommended not to develop dispute options for registrants. * The working group must provide a clear rationale if it believes that further work is needed on this issue. Discussion: * Zak: Thought the reason the WG didn’t want to recommend a registrant-initiated dispute resolution process is because it is out of scope of the current policy; but we can note that there has been considerable support for such a process so the GNSO Council should seriously consider it. * Berry, staff: What would it look like if this WG were to recommend further work to be done: 1) Issue Report; 2) scoped into a PDP, etc. If this issue were to be deliberated further it boils down to whether there is an arbitration-type option because we already have the courts as an option. If a policy were recommended to create a dispute mechanism for registrants, it’s not clear how it could be enforced since ICANN only has contractual relationships with contracted parties; how would you compel registrants to use it? Or would it be optional? Came up as an issue and was considered by IRTP-D without a recommendation. Not sure how we can draw a bright line between dispute about the transfer and the ownership of the name. * Zak: If the WG were to make a recommendation, the WG can punt any determinations to the GNSO Council. * Roger: We can’t just throw anything to Council, we have to have a rationale. * Berry, staff: The WG does need to provide sufficient rationale to assist the Council in it making a decision to request an Issue Report and the resources to do it. * Emily, staff: We’ve heard a call for a registrant-initiated process for TDRP disputes; the other is ownership disputes that don’t have anything to do with the transfer policy, which potentially hinges on who is best qualified to determine ownership – helpful to make sure cases can be successful. Would it be helpful for this group to scope out the specific use cases that they think need to be addressed? * It could be both a TDRP dispute and an ownership dispute. Registrars should support this. * We would need to document the use cases; we could start with the use cases from the IRTP-D. * Emily, staff: Wonder if we want to revisit the use cases from IRTP-D and whether there are additional cases. Also come back to high-jacking as a key use case and see if it is less of an issue today. * Heard from registrars that high-jacking is not a big as issue as it used to be, but it still a big part of disputes. * Berry, staff: Could be general support for some kind of recommendation to go back to the Council; in terms of providing substance around the recommendation – assuming Council signs off on an Issue Report, not sure staff has the expertise to produce one: Question to Zak – can you find suggestions of who or what organization that could help draft an Issue Report and also it would be interested to hear views of why groups would use the procedure; Question to registrars: Would they be willing to have one-on-one interviews with an independent researcher? * Zak: No need for an independent researcher, can ask about level of interest in the public comment. * Steiner: Is it correct that this WG doesn’t have standing to create a recommendation for a registrant-initiated dispute resolution process? Answer: There was not support for the current Transfer Dispute Policy being expand but for creating something new. * Support handling this in a different group. ACTION ITEM: Re: A possible registrant-initiated dispute resolution mechanism -- staff to present the use cases from IRTP-D for WG consideration; WG members to review and add use cases that might be missing. 6. AOB

1 0