- GNSO-TPR - lists.icann.org

TPR-P1 // 30 June 2022 Project Package
by Berry Cobb July 6, 2022

July 6, 2022

Dear WG, Please find a link below to project package for the TPR-P1 PDP (30 June 2022). This package is a snap-shot at the close of each month and developed by the leadership team to report on the working group’s activities and status of the project. It is also distributed to the GNSO Council to keep them informed as managers of the PDP. The package is deposited on the wiki so that we can track access statistics. Link: https://community.icann.org/x/MQDQCQ 1. Page 01 – Summary dashboard and project SitRep 2. Page 02 – Working Group’s work plan 3. Page 03 – Project Plan, Gantt chart 4. Page 04-06 – Activity metrics and group attendance for plenary meetings 5. Page 06-07 – Group roster Key points: * The WG is proceeding according to plan against the charter topics/questions. * The WG submitted its Phase 1A Initial Report for public comment on 21 Jun 2022 and closed 02 Aug 2022. Please let us know if you have questions. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Policy Development – Senior Program Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 424 443 8960 Phone: +1 202 570 7240 Fax: +1 202 789 0104 Twitter: @berrycobb www.icann.org<https://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 12 July 2022
by Julie Bisland July 5, 2022

July 5, 2022

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 12 July 2022 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room 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/3wIVD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/2sjukenb ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the Main Zoom Webinar link above; staff will promote you to panelist. * Chat: Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Everyone so everyone can see and so it’s captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – For tracking alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 05 July 2022
by Julie Bisland July 5, 2022

July 5, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 05 July 2022 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/3AIVD> (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 chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call as a Panelist, observers can join as an Attendee to listen. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/P4aUCQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and action items - TPR WG Meeting #52 - 05 July 2022 at 16:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 5, 2022

July 5, 2022

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, 12 July at 16:00 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin Action Items: WG members are encouraged to provide additional inputs in the working document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gu4sXGvyJeWJIfvaK_I7GKA6lAdfKFPQKaN4UMg… (table on page 8) prior to the next meeting on 12 July. Notes: Transfer Policy Review Phase 1(b) - Meeting #52 Proposed Agenda 12 July 2022 1. Roll Call & SOI updates SOI Update from Catherine Merdinger: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Catherine+Merdinger+SOI 2. Welcome and Chair Updates * Reminder that the Phase 1(a) Initial Report is out for public comment. Closes on 02 August. * Reminder that we will take a few weeks off at the end of August – 6 more sessions before the break. During the break would be a good time to review the public comments. 3. WG Analysis of Key Elements of CoR See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gu4sXGvyJeWJIfvaK_I7GKA6lAdfKFPQKaN4UMg…, table on page 8 For reference, here is the Transfer Policy: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en Overview: * In Phase 1(a) we found that this was a helpful exercise to look at the high-level elements and the functions that they serve. Make sure everyone understands them and think about whether or not they make sense. We’ve heard that people want to make changes but drilling down on the elements will help us to focus the discussion. * CoR policy is pretty compact. Think with this table we’ll hit on all of the topics of the policy. The first element is key – to confirm that the domain name is eligible for CoR. Policy Elements: Confirm the domain name is eligible for Change of Registrant (Section II.C.1.1). WG Notes: * Thinking through the reasons we might not allow CoR, section 2.1 still seems reasonable. 2.2 may need to change. 2.3 also reasonable. * Wonder if there should be something in here where the name is in violation of the registrar’s policies as a reason why the registrar could hold up a CoR. It’s not really a dispute and wouldn’t be a court order. * I like 3; we might put a placeholder that we might need to expand these reasons. * Could consider carrying over language from Phase 1(a). Obtain confirmation of the Change of Registrant request from the New Registrant, or a Designated Agent of the New Registrant, and provide certain required notifications (Section II.C.1.2). WG Notes: * This section is confusing and doesn’t add much. * Would it make sense if it as a notification instead of a confirmation? * Don’t think we need a confirmation at this stage – maybe a notification. Something that allows a person to quickly flag it’s a problem or to undo it. Replace confirmation with notification. * A point from a prior call: CoR in combination with change of registrar, why having these intertwined muddles the policy. CoR looks to the registry like a change of registrar but usually isn’t. These are two very different situations. * Seems like there is good support for changing confirmation to notification – any objections? (none) Inform the Prior Registrant or its Designated Agent that if its final goal is to transfer the domain name to a different registrar, the Prior Registrant is advised to request the inter-registrar transfer before the Change of Registrant to avoid triggering the 60-day lock (Section II.C.1.3) WG Notes: * This is the next stage, that there are two parts to this – warn them that this has an impact if there also is a change of registrar. * There are a couple of ways today to avoid a 60-day lock. * Does a 60-day lock make sense? Is 60 days the right number? Is there a way to opt out? * Not sure why we went with 60 days, maybe just mirroring other lock time periods. Maybe say that the registrar must remove the lock if requested (instead of MAY). * Maybe we drop to 30 days to mirror what we decided in Phase 1(a). * From the IRTP-C Final Report: “The 60-day lock is used to “contain” the changes of Registrants within a single Registrar in order to facilitate recovery of domains that have been hijacked.” * Don’t think we need it, but if we have it, it should follow the timing of the registrar transfer. * At least all registrar should have the same policy. * Maybe leave it for the registrar to decide and remove it from the policy. * Sounds like there is support for removing the lock. * Should the policy state that there should not be a lock? * Maybe we fix this by considering how to address this in the transfer reversal process. * Could keep it but reduce it to 30 days. If we remove it that is a security vulnerability. We should not compromise security. * Need a rationale for keeping it. Could be helpful to have numbers to support both arguments. Maybe from ICANN Compliance? * You can opt out of the lock currently, if the registrar offers that option. Not all registrar offer this. * Suggest including in the policy the ability to remove the lock – it’s not currently there or unclear. * Three proposals: 1) remove the lock; 2) keep but shorten the timeframe; 3) keeping it but allowing a registrant to get the lock removed. Obtain confirmation of the Change of Registrant request from the Prior Registrant, or the Designated Agent of the Prior Registrant (Section II.C.1.4). WG Notes: * Similar to the confirmation of the new registrant, this is the confirmation of the Prior Registrant. Big question is whether you need a confirmation or is a notification sufficient. * Doesn’t really serve a purpose to prevent domain name hijacking. * Changing from confirmation to notification is a suggestion. * Maybe have the option for a fast undo. * Wonder if there are good examples of a secure method of communication that is more secure than the current practice? * Could be notification only with an option to dispute. * Needs to be a balance of level of security. * Could we at least simplify the language in the policy? * In Phase 1(a) we talked about the importance of the TAC for security. Is there something that we can have that the notification between the prior and new registrant is secure? * We do need to be mindful of the difference between notification and confirmation. There is ambiguity in the definition of “secure” in this context/language. Not sure if “secure” is the right way to word this. * Sorry, the formatting of that is terrible, but secure mechanism is discussed in the implementation notes and was designed to provide some flexibility for implementation. * Do we need something more that the change request is valid? Just need the appropriate level of security. * Can we do something better here? Probably not at the cost of flexibility. * Good point... Sarah brings up the difference between changing data WITHIN a particular account (at a registrar) and moving a registration ACROSS accounts (at a registrar). Maybe the policy needs to accommodate these two very different actions. * We should look at what other companies do for account management accuracy. * Going back to an earlier point: changing account information irrespective of industry. Under GDPR data subjects have certain rights to accuracy, but that doesn’t preclude security. If you are doing industry practices in a secure manner that would not violate GDPR. Having an out-of-bound authentication as a security policy shouldn’t violate GDPR. * Think that the push here was to remove the confirmation and changing it to notification. Process the Change of Registrant within one (1) day of obtaining the confirmations (Section II.C.1.5). WG Notes: * If we change confirmations to notifications how does that affect this part of the policy? Does it still apply? No longer than 1 day from notification of both parties? * The key to this is to make sure the process continues and is completed. But when does the 1-day period start? * Because there is no confirmation don’t think there is a place for this 1-day timeframe. * The key is that they wanted to get the updates done at the registrar within a reasonable time. * If this CoR is on the registry level there is no way to verify that. * The 1 day was meant to be at the registrar level. * Section 1.5 was the mechanism to force the change to happen. * 1.5 needs to be updated that when those notification are sent (if we change from confirmation) that happens within 1 day. * If we are moving to notification from confirmation we don’t need 1.5. Notify the Prior Registrant and New Registrant before or within one day of the completion of the Change of Registrant (Section II.C.1.6). This notification includes informing the Prior Registrant and New Registrant of the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock or informing the Prior Registrant that it previously opted out of the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock (Section II.C.1.6.4). WG Notes: * Seems to be okay when talking about notifications (versus confirmations). Seems to still be appropriate. * Should add in the dispute process, which we need to create. Impose a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock, unless the Registered Name Holder had previously opted out (Section II.C.2). WG Notes: * Do we remove it, shorten it, have a way to opt out? Think about these questions for the next call, also in the context of moving to notifications instead of confirmations. * Any additional inputs will be welcome in the working doc between then and next week's call. 4. AOB: Next meeting, Tuesday, 12 July at 16:00 UTC.

1 0

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 05 July 2022
by Julie Bisland July 5, 2022

July 5, 2022

**AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR** Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 05 July 2022 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room 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/3AIVD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yckz6c6a [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yckz6c6a__;!!PtGJab4!7Hck3qr…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the Main Zoom Webinar link above; staff will promote you to panelist. * Chat: Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Everyone so everyone can see and so it’s captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – For tracking alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Reminder: Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 05 July 2022
by Nathalie Peregrine July 4, 2022

July 4, 2022

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 05 July 2022 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room 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/3AIVD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yckz6c6a [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yckz6c6a__;!!PtGJab4!7Hck3qr…> ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the Main Zoom Webinar link above; staff will promote you to panelist. * Chat: Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Everyone so everyone can see and so it’s captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – For tracking alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed agenda for meeting #52 on Tuesday 5 July at 16:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas July 1, 2022

July 1, 2022

Dear Working Group members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 5 July 2022 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Julie, Berry, Caitlin, and Emily Transfer Policy Review Phase 1(b) - Meeting #52 Proposed Agenda 5 July 2022 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates 3. WG Analysis of Key Elements of CoR 4. AOB * Next session: Tuesday 12 July at 16:00 UTC

1 0

Notes and action items - TPR WG Meeting #51 - 28 June 2022 at 16:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 28, 2022

June 28, 2022

Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, 05 July at 16:00 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin Action Items: None. Notes: Transfer Policy Review Phase 1(a) - Meeting #51 Proposed Agenda 28 June 2022 1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates * Thanking the group: Hit our first major milestone last week by publishing our Initial Report for Phase 1a for public comment on schedule. * ICANN74 started our next phase and topic – Change of Registrant (COR). Seemed good support for continuing the COR policy. a. Call schedule for July and August * Public comment open on 21st of June and scheduled to close on 2 August. * Weekly calls are scheduled through 9 August. * Discussions through 9 August will be focused on key COR questions. * There will be no calls in the second half of August. WG members will be asked to review public comments during that period. * Calls will resume 6 September. About a month of the work plan is allocated to public comment review. * Target date for Phase 1(b) delivery is 29 March 2023. 3. Review of Phase 1(b) charter topics and workplan See the specific charter questions<https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2.+WG+Charter?preview=/161808892…> at page 5 by topic with a summary here: Overall Policy d1) Are the goals of the policy still valid and if so how can they be achieve? d2) If the policy is maintained, how to make it simpler but maintain safeguards. d3) Should it be changed to a standalone policy and what guidance is needed if both registrant and registrar change? How to review the applicability of the COR? 60-Day Lock: d4) Big question is that there have been issues with this lock – key question is what should happen with this lock. Also, questions related to issue of domain name hijacking. d5) Survey responses indicate frustration with the lock. If it is retained what options should there be for removal of the lock? d6) Due to privacy requirements there has been a lack of public access to certain data, which may have reduced the risk of hijacking. Is the 60-day lock not needed when underlying registrant data is changed? d7) Concerns about hindering corporate acquisitions, consolidations, and divestitures of large lists of domains to new legal entities. d8) Specific questions related to the policy language. Change of Registrant – Privacy/Proxy Customers d9) and d10) Application of CoR policy, and the 60-day lock, apply to underlying registrant data when the registrant uses a privacy/proxy service. d11) Notifications relating to privacy/proxy services. Designated Agent d12) Questions relating to overuse of the Designated Agent. d13) If the Designated Agent function is not operating as intended, should it be retained and modified? Eliminated? d14) Are there alternative means to meet the objectives of Designated Agent role? d15) Questions relating to the flexibility of the Designated Agent. d16) Questions relating to the role of the Designated Agent, whether and how it should be changed, and what authority it should have over CORs. Additional Questions d17) The Registrar Stakeholder Group recommended the following in its survey response: “For a Change of Registrant, both the gaining and losing registrants should be notified of any requests, and should have the option accept or reject, over EPP notifications.” Should this proposal be pursued further? Why or why not? e1) Re: Wave 1, Recommendation 27: How should the identified issues be addressed? e2) Re: Wave 1, Recommendation 27: Can the Change of Registrant-related issue (identified in paragraph 6 of the Wave 1 report) be discussed and reviewed during the review of the Change of Registrant Process? Change of Registrant Topics – timing: * Overall Policy (40 days, approximately 6 meetings) * 60-Day Lock (40 days, approximately 6 meetings) * Privacy/Proxy Customers (35 days, approximately 5 meetings) * Designated Agent (25 days, approximately 3 meetings) * Additional questions (20 days, approximately 2 meetings) * Wave 1 - Recommendation 27 (20 days, approximately 2 meetings) Discussion: * Could be issues with GDPR. We could take a look at that material change discussion – what is it, and the accuracy requirements under GDPR and privacy requirements. * This provides a level set of what we are expecting. Looks like a good plan with built in flexibility. * Three important documents: Section 2 of current policy; charter; and Issues Report. 4. Continued discussion of charter questions d1-d3 High-level Discussion at ICANN74: * Good discussion at ICANN74. * Policy seems to be working but not sure it is achieving its goal as it stand now. * There are some things we can do related to security, but not everything. Could carry over some security aspects suggestion at ICANN74. Working document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gu4sXGvyJeWJIfvaK_I7GKA6lAdfKFPQKaN4UMg… Charter Question d1) According to the Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team Report, the Change of Registrant policy “does not achieve the stated goals” and “is not relevant in the current & future domain ownership system.” To what extent is this the case and why? Are the stated goals still valid? If the Change of Registrant policy is not meeting the stated goals and those goals are still valid, how should the goals be achieved? Discussion: * Key question is “Do the goals still make sense and can we create something that will support those goals. * Registrars need to make an assessment of how high is their level of risk. * Curious about the argument that in order to get your name to secure you have pay. * Different registrars have different business models. * Some registrants aren’t aware of the various security options from different registrars. * Note that we are trying to solve a registrant issue. * We don’t have numbers relating to the goal of preventing hijacking although we do have some numbers on complaints. Charter Question d2) Data gathered in the Transfer Policy Status Report indicates that some registrants find Change of Registrant requirements burdensome and confusing. If the policy is retained, are there methods to make the Change of Registrant policy simpler while still maintaining safeguards against unwanted transfers? Charter Question d3) The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team Report suggests that there should be further consideration of establishing a standalone policy for Change of Registrant. According to the Scoping Team, the policy should take into account the use case where a Change of Registrar occurs simultaneously with a Change of Registrant. To what extent should this issue be considered further? What are the potential benefits, if any, to making this change? To what extent does the policy need to provide specific guidance on cases where both the registrar and registrant are changed? Are there particular scenarios that need to be reviewed to determine the applicability of COR? * Gaining Registrar allows a new customer to input the Registrant information when requesting an inbound inter-registrar transfer. The information entered by the customer does not match Registration Data available in the Whois display. * In the case of “thin” domain names, the Gaining Registrar obtains information from the Registry. If it is determined that the Change of Registrant policy should be retained and modified, the following specific areas may be appropriate for further review. TPR Poll: 1. To what extent are changes to CoR requirements needed, taking into consideration changes to the landscape since the IRTP-C, available data, and/or personal experience? – 11 Responses * No change is needed – 0% * Only small adjustments are needed – 27% * Significant changes are needed – 55% * There should not be a CoR policy – 18% * No answer/don’t know – 0% Discussion: * Most people thought the policy make sense with changes. 2. Are the CoR goals discussed during ICANN74 valid for the purposes of future policy work? - 10 Responses * All are valid – 36% * Some are valid – 55% * None are valid – 9% * No answer/don’t know – 0% Goals are: * Standardize across registrars, creating a better/easier experience for registrants. * Improve security by ensuring the changes are authorized. * Manage instances of domain theft/hijacking (especially with respect to the 60-day CoR lock). Discussion: * Security is a baseline – but may this is a transparency of change, rather than a policy. * Some registrars might use their experience of change of registrant as a way to differentiate through their business models. Requiring the same processes of all registrars may stifle innovation. * Could be some baseline requirements, particularly relating to security. * Based on the poll there is agreement on something, but not clear what that is. 3. Should the working group further explore the proposal to apply principles and processes developed in Phase 1a to CoR? – 11 Responses * Yes – 82% * No – 18% * No answer/don’t know – 0% Discussion: * One thing that is common is the confusion between the CoR and inter-registrar transfer. Most transfers are a registrant seeking to move from one registrant to another. These should be dealt with separately. 4. Is the definition of what constitutes a Change of Registrant still appropriate or should it be changed? – 13 Responses * Still appropriate – 38% * Needs to be changed – 62% * No answer/don’t know – 0% Definitions: A.1.3 "Material Change" means a change which is not a typographical correction. The following will be considered material changes: 1.3.1 A change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that does not appear to be merely a typographical correction; 1.3.2 Any change to the Registered Name Holder's name or organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number; 1.3.3 Any change to the Registered Name Holder's email address. For avoidance of doubt, nothing prevents the Registrar from treating any change to the Registrant Name or Registrant Organization field as a Material Change. The IRT defined any change to the email as material because any change to the original email would generally render the email undeliverable. Discussion: * A lot of transfers also occur around expiration dates, so registrants are even more frustrated that they have to renew at the old registrar even though they wanted to transfer/renew at same time, and now they're locked for 60 days. 5. Should CoR be a standalone policy or continue to be part of the Transfer Policy? – 12 Responses * CoR requirements should continue to be part of the Transfer Policy – 25% * CoR should be a standalone policy – 42% * This question should be considered only after other charter questions are addressed – 33% * No answer/don’t know – 0% Discussion: * Pretty even split. * Interesting to see how this evolves as we address the charter questions. 5. AOB Next session: Tuesday 5 July at 16:00 UTC

1 0

Post Call | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG | Tuesday, 28 June 2022
by Julie Bisland June 28, 2022

June 28, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call held on Tuesday, 28 June 2022 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/cAD5Cw> (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 chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call as a Panelist, observers can join as an Attendee to listen. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/P4aUCQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

Meeting Invitation | Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call | Tuesday, 05 July 2022
by Julie Bisland June 28, 2022

June 28, 2022

Dear all, The next Transfer Policy Review PDP WG call is scheduled for Tuesday, 05 July 2022 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Zoom Room 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/3AIVD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yckz6c6a ONLY FOR MEMBERS & ALTERNATES: * Please join via the Main Zoom Webinar link above; staff will promote you to panelist. * Chat: Members (and alternates replacing members), please select Everyone so everyone can see and so it’s captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – For tracking alternate replacements, use the google form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXP3-H…> to communicate the replacement (alternate) and the duration. This information will be publicly posted to the Alternate Log-Transfer Policy Review PDP<https://community.icann.org/x/V4aUCQ> wiki page. * Alternates (not replacing a member): Rename your line by adding THREE Zs (zzz) before your name and add, in parentheses (your affiliation - alternate) after your name. To rename in Zoom, hover over your name and click ‘rename’. * Alternates (not replacing a member) are not allowed to engage in the chat or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing/disagreeing. ONLY FOR OBSERVERS: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0