Dear TPR WG members,

Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. 

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 09 May at 1600 UTC.

Best regards,

Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:  Re: Codification of informal dispute resolution process -- By COB Monday, 08 May: WG members should indicate as comments in the document (if any) those elements/details that should be specific policy requirements and whether they represent Stakeholder Group positions.  See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vP9Q-EyhroHIrurlqrMWOl13_6yAQX2_y7vzteOV3fQ/edit [docs.google.com].

Notes:

Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #89

Proposed Agenda

02 May 2023

1. Roll Call & SOI updates

2. Welcome and Chair Updates

• 1. Early Input: We have one additional early input submission from the SSAC, which has been shared on the mailing list. As a reminder, everyone should have read all of the early input documents.
• 2. ICANN77: Plan to focus our session at ICANN77 on draft recommendations related to changes/proposals for updates to the TEAC/TDRP.
• 3. Project Plan: Outstanding action – staff to revise the text for the Wave 1 Rec 27 working document – close out today.  Go over the Small Team proposal.  Getting back to charter questions on TEAC/TDRP in the run up to ICANN77.

3. Review of Small Team’s Informal Resolution Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vP9Q-EyhroHIrurlqrMWOl13_6yAQX2_y7vzteOV3fQ/edit [docs.google.com]

Discussion:

• Sarah: This should be part of policy.  When is the deadline for comments? Can we clarify how this interacts with TEAC?
• Rich: The goal is that the LRr should indicate the urgency. 
• Emily: Before we get into the specifics, we should do a level set – the bigger question is: What do we mean by codifying?  1) Documented’ 2) best practice; 3) policy?  There were differences of opinion in the Small Team. Need to be clear what problem it is that we are trying to solve. Core goal is to get back to the charter questions.
• Rick: Document presupposes that the old registrant and new registrant are different/not equivalent entities.  Need to clarify that.  If pre and post are equivalent then the steps change.
• Caitlin: If the pre and post transfer registrant are the same, couldn’t that person just transfer back (themselves)?
• Rick: If they are equivalent entities transferring from one registrar to another and wants to transfer back – different scenario.
• Volker: Need to consider possibility for registrant to have his/her ability to reverse a transfer.
• Sarah: This process should only be for unauthorized transfers.
• Roger: Before we get into details, we need to agree that the informal process should be policy.
• Zak: Think this codification is not policy – what aspects of this become mandatory?  The devil is in the details.  If there is a formal procedure there have to be built-in safeguards, evidence required, etc.
• Emily: We have had a number of conversations about possible policy requirements, such as fast undo if there is a non-responsive Gaining registrar, but the only interest was in documenting what is happening informally.  Doesn’t seem like there was support for specific policy requirements.
• Steinar: We should still have a policy that allows the registrars to solve this as it has been done today. Also would like a path for the registrant.
• Roger: Show of hands -- Support for turning informal into policy: 9 – Take this back to your Stakeholder Groups for positions on this.
• Emily: Helpful to understand what problem(s) we are trying to solve.  Also a show of hands for those who don’t think policy is required:
• Theo: Would like to know what is the issue we are solving by developing policy.
• Emily: Curious what the policy requirements would be – different from the gap analysis fast undo proposal from Sarah.  We discussed those elements and only support for voluntary elements.
• Sarah: I thought this was the same thing.
• Roger: Thought we didn’t have agreement on fast undo policy.
• Emily: Might be confusion about what is asked from SGs – helpful to turn the small team document into policy requirements?  Or alternatively a small group could write this up.
• Zak: Also helpful to get from the supporters of policy examples of what would be required.
• Roger: Those that support policy should put comments in the document.

ACTION ITEM: By COB Monday, 08 May: WG members should indicate as comments in the document (if any) those elements/details that should be specific policy requirements and whether they represent Stakeholder Group positions.  See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vP9Q-EyhroHIrurlqrMWOl13_6yAQX2_y7vzteOV3fQ/edit [docs.google.com].

4. Time permitting – Draft updates from Recommendation 27, Wave 1 Items Related to TEAC and TDRP – see: Wave 1, Rec 27 Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GTtkEPJvYNMW27UaJZAGQlSb1BOYRhO7rSbFyb_9dhs/edit?usp=sharing and Draft redlines to TDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkmM9w/edit?usp=sharing

[staff walked through the documents – there were no questions or comments from WG members]

5. AOB