Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from this week’s meeting. The next meeting will take place on Saturday, 09 November 2024 at 15:00 local time (Istanbul). Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the TPR WG Support Team 2024-11-05 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call<https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2024-11-05+Transfer+Policy+Review...> Documents: 1. Link to Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT):https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lyX27uECA5bNKRw-UOIH2bAaTRvec1YkX1EK... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lyX27uECA...> 2. Link to Rec Drafting Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YODFe-aZOi1AQ3c8f2-y8MXtcUU4PjzsByFzk-dp... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1YODFe-aZOi1AQ...> Action Item: Assignment 5 – Rec #34 – 47 (Group 2 ICANN-approved transfers + BTAPPA) - Deadline: 11/25/2024 * Welcome and Chair Updates · The Chair opened the meeting with brief comments, emphasizing the importance of reviewing public comments on recommendations in preparation for the upcoming ICANN 81 face-to-face session, as the session wants to discuss some of the more complex areas/comments. · Members were encouraged to bring up any specific concerns for discussion on the mailing list. * Discussion of Recommendations 25-28 · Recommendation 25: ICANN Org provided an overview of comments on recommendation 25, focusing on privacy proxy providers. A suggestion was made to remove references to proxy providers, recognizing that a change to a proxy provider represents a change in registrant data and should not be grouped with privacy providers. · Recommendation 26: o Comments included concerns about the removal of the Designated Agent definition. o Removing 26.2 was considered high impact by commenters. o A public comment was made about including a 30-day lock instead of removal of lock for “material changes” to protect domain ownership integrity. o Concerns were raised from commenters about the removal of confirmation from both prior and new registrant prior to processing the CORD. o The group discussed that updating data should not automatically trigger a transfer lock and noted that changes to registrant data do not always imply a change of ownership. · Recommendation 27: o Further clarification was discussed regarding acceptable channels for notifications (e.g., email, SMS) and that registrars should use the most secure, preferred communication method for notifications. o The working group discussed whether the word “immediately” should be included in Rec 27 instead of the “without undue delay”. WG members were not in favour of this proposal. o Another suggestion included an addition of a time period within which the registrant must take action (27.2). WG Members agreed that adding specific response times could introduce liability and may not resolve the underlying concerns about delayed registrant awareness o WG member suggested the time period of action should be considered as a separate thing and be taken out of 27.2. o Comments to 27.3 included to send notifiations to all contact available and to document and make available all notifications to ICANN compliance when requested. Some WG members considered this as sensible addition and some added to make keep flexibility in the channels notifications are sent. o Comments to 27.4 included to change “may” to “must” send the CORD notification to the RNHs new email address. However, WG members suggested to keep the “may”. * Draft Revisions to Recommendations 3, 12-24 Not covered. * Any Other Business (AOB) 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>