Dear TPR WG Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next TPR WG meeting will be on Tuesday, 07 December at 16:00 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin Action Items 1. Losing FOA Candidate Recommendations – see: Losing FOA Working Document <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u...> (beginning on p. 14) and Transfer Steps and Notifications [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ADMRTYxN...> Candidate Recommendation #12: ACTION ITEM: Staff to amend footnote 1 as follows: “The Working Group recommends notes that, in place of the Losing FOA, notifications are sent to the RNH [in relation to an inter-registrar transfer] when key changes take place with their account in relation to a transfer, as detailed in recommendations 13-15.” Candidate Recommendations #13 and #14: ACTION ITEM: Staff to determine whether footnotes 2 and 3 need to be duplicates or if they can be combined. Candidate Recommendation #14: ACTION ITEM: Replace with new text suggested with clarification. ACTION ITEM: Jim Galvin to take the question to the Registries Stakeholder Group as to the feasibility of providing the IANA ID and/or name of the Gaining Registrar. Leave in the requirement in the candidate recommendation until we get a response. 2. Rationale for Elimination of the Gaining FOA – see: Gaining FOA Working Document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1QOCzbLh7w4hdi...> (beginning on p. 16) ACTION ITEM: WG members should review the rationale for eliminating the Gaining FOA in preparation for next week’s meeting. Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #26 Tuesday 30 November 2021 at 16:00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates * No updates provided. 2. Welcome & Chair updates * Reminder we are pulling forward from Phase 2 the NACKing section (section H of the charter) into Phase 1a. * Owen Smigelski re: Registrar Stakeholder Group survey regarding domain creation/transfer locks; see results at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-64Z4RqJB2sxR2aFbjt-YakafsjIrYixonfbHcCl.... * Got 21 responses out of about 100 members. * There was a wide selection of respondents and regions. * Survey results seem to represent a wide range of opinion. * Question: Did you provide context such as proposed changes that would improve security? Answer: No, just want lock you would prefer and length. There was a comments section where some respondents provided rationale. * Question: Any talk about the opt in/opt out feature? Answer: No, that wasn’t included. * Question: In terms of responses received, can you correlate responses from older registrars versus newer ones? Answer: Do know how each registrar responded, but not sure how much detail I can provide and still keep the data anonymous. * Re: this poll and the AT-Large poll – the background information/context is crucial. Think about putting together a webinar with thoughts and perspectives on this. * Project Plan (see attached document): * WP Meeting #25: Losing FOA; Gaining FOA TPR WG 11/30/21 * WP Meeting #27: Gaining FOA; Revisit TAC TPR WG 12/07/21 * WP Meeting #28: Second reading of FOA/TAC; 60 day lock TPR WG 12/14/21 * WP Meeting #29: 60 day lock; NACK TPR WG 12/21/21 * WP Meeting #30: NACK TPR WG 01/04/22 * WP Meeting #31: Review recommendations package - Phase 1A TPR WG 01/11/22 * WP Meeting #32: Start bulk discussion TPR WG 01/18/22 3. Losing FOA Candidate Recommendations – see: Losing FOA Working Document <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u...> (beginning on p. 14) and Transfer Steps and Notifications [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ADMRTYxN...> Candidate Recommendation #12: * Question re: footnote 1: Why is this written as a recommendation? See “The Working Group recommends that, in place of the Losing FOA, notifications are sent to the RNH when key changes take place with their account in relation to a transfer, as detailed in recommendations 13-15.” * Useful to clarify “losing registrar” is the pre-transfer registrar? Should consistently use “losing registrar” since that is in the policy. * Confirm that several members raised concerns with recommendation #12 that the context needs to be provided, which is the intention of the footnote. * Concerned that “when key changes take place with their account in relation to a transfer” isn’t clear. Leave that out and add the text in brackets: “[in relation to an inter-registrar transfer]” * Not sure resellers can be compliant with this recommendation. * The footnote is only supposed to say that we have decided to remove Losing FOA and do notifications instead as detailed in recommendations #13-#15. The footnote is not a recommendation itself. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to amend footnote 1 as follows: “The Working Group recommends notes that, in place of the Losing FOA, notifications are sent to the RNH [in relation to an inter-registrar transfer] when key changes take place with their account in relation to a transfer, as detailed in recommendations 13-15.” Candidate Recommendation #13: * Re: “The Working Group recommends that the Registrar of Record MUST send a notification [specify method of sending?] to the RNH (as listed in the Registration Data at the time of the TAC request) without undue delay but no later than [10 minutesperiod of time] after the Registrar of Record provides the TAC.” 10-minute time period seems too short. * Possible alternative approach to recommendations 13 & 15 -- Notification of TAC provision is always required when TAC is provided immediately upon request. Notification of TAC request is always required when there is period of time between TAC request and TAC provision. Could provide a conditional statement – different notifications depending on whether instant transfer or asynchronous. * For the moment #13 seems fine, but we may want to come back to it when we discuss bulk transfers. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to determine whether footnotes 2 and 3 need to be duplicates or if they can be combined. Candidate Recommendation #14: * Question: There is one bit of ambiguity: We start out talking about the transfer request and then jump to notification of transfer completion – which is it? Answer: This is about completion of transfer. * Requiring the IANA ID is a new requirement; not sure it is feasible. But this seems like good information to have, so we should require it and figure out now to do it? It could be a lot of work, but maybe the benefit outweighs the impact. * Is it really that useful? Is this really a likely scenario? * It is quite valuable information to have – where the domain name is going. From a registrant perspective it seems like an obviously good thing to know. If you have the IANA ID you can then look up the contact information. We should make this more user friendly. * If we're making a change to what's in the poll response, maybe we should focus on getting the Registrar name rather than IANA ID? RNH will find Registrar name more useful. * Jim Galvin said that they will ask this question of registries to understand the work that might be involved. * Staff working on diagraming the process flow based on the candidate recommendations and also will look at RFC 5731 “Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping”. * ACTION ITEM: Replace with new text suggested with clarification. * ACTION ITEM: Jim Galvin to take the question to the Registries Stakeholder Group as to the feasibility of providing the IANA ID and/or name of the Gaining Registrar. Leave in the requirement in the candidate recommendation until we get a response. Candidate Recommendation #15: * No changes needed as revised. Candidate Recommendation #16: * The WG determined that this was no longer needed so it has been deleted. Re: Record Keeping: * Are there recommendations for each topic area? Or in general? * Don’t most businesses already keep data? Do we have to require it? * If we do make recommendation concerning logs and data retention we could start with requirements to keep records of transfers but as required in the EPDP policy. * It could help to spell out the requirements. There is already current wording that we can look at about keeping logs and best practices. * Do we create global recommendations for transfer policy, or more precise recommendations for each area (TAC, etc.). 4. Rationale for Elimination of the Gaining FOA – see: Gaining FOA Working Document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1QOCzbLh7w4hdi...> (beginning on p. 16) * ACTION ITEM: WG members should review the rationale for eliminating the Gaining FOA in preparation for next week’s meeting. 5. AOB: Next call Tuesday 7 December 2021 at 16:00 UTC.