Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will take place on Tuesday 16 April 2024 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry, Julie and Feodora 2024-04-09 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call<https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2024-04-09+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call> Main discussion and action items 1. Welcome and Chair Updates 2. Review WG inputs to CORD Requirements for Initial Report worksheet<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_lZLOmNQJKqAsAqxHTv8W5TQeRIm58YvS4vCPIwEdbE/edit?usp=sharing> * BC raised some concerns regarding Rec 2.3 and 2.4. Could lead to confusion and misunderstanding. * Some comments include the lack of rationale. * Cannot Live with comments focus on Rec 2.3, 2.4, 3, 3.4 and 4. * How can WG explain that the aim is not to reduce security levels with some changes but to be adaptive for many business models? * Suggestion: Members could put questions to WG via webinar regarding Recs? * Group 1)a) organised a previous webinar focus on awareness raising rather than answering questions. * Rec 2.4: The working group recommends eliminating from the future Change of Registrant Data Policy the requirement that the Registrar impose a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock following a Change of Registrant. * WG suggested to remove 60 day lock for change of registrant, BC believes 30 day lock should be by default. * WG discussed the rationale of 30 days? Why that number why not other? * Some members suggested that current Rec 2.4 might cause compliance issues. * Others indicated that no amount of lock will provide more security. * BC doesn’t support opt-out of notification reg Rec. 3 due to security concerns. * BC suggests that for Rec 3.4 that notificiation should occure before change of registrant. * Can live with, but with changes focus on Rec: 3, 3.4, 4 and 17. * Members informed the WG that registrants have indicated to leave because they receive too many notification. * Members point out the importance of notifications due to security. * Initial comments results show the following input to the Recs: CANNOT LIVE WITH BC · (2.3) Keep confirmation to prior/new before change · (2.4) Reduce lock to 30 days, keep opt out · (3, 3.4, 4) No opt out of notifications, notifications before not after CAN LIVE WITH (with change) At-Large · (3, 4) No opt out of notifications · (17) Established Relationship concern RySG · (17) require record-keeping for removing lock early RrSG · (17) torn - some satisfied with ER test, others would remove ER restrictions · (4.4) Q - clarify record maintenance BC · (1.3) remove second part or require disclosure GRAMMATICAL EDITS RySG (Jim) · (3) add ref to Rec 2 · (4.6) update for consistency RrSG · (3, 3.4, 4.2, 17) clarity + grammar SUPPORT REC AS IS At-Large · 1,2,3 RySG · 1,2,3,4 RrSG · 1,2 BC · 1, 1.1, 1.2 (not 1.3) · 2.1, 2.3 (not 2, 2.2, 2.4) · 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 (not 3, 3.4) 1. Continue discussion of updated Group 1(a) Rec 17 (Established Relationships) * At-Larg and RySG have concerns reg Rec 17. * AT-large considers the “Established Relationship” is confusing and difficult to understand. Reconsider wording? * RySG would like to see changes regarding the record keeping. * WG members suggested to discuss in more depth during the next call. 2. AOB * Not discussed Feodora Hamza Policy Development Support Manager (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +32 496 30 24 15 Email: feodora.hamza@icann.org<mailto:feodora.hamza@icann.org> Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>