Dear TPR WG members,

Please find below the notes and action items from this week’s meeting. 

The next meeting will take place on Tuesday, 17 December 2024 at 16:00 UTC.

Kind regards,

Feodora on behalf of the TPR WG Support Team

2024-12-10 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Action Item:

· WG members to review the Q3 “Other Comments” in the Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT) and flag comments that require further discussion in the WG, i.e., comments, ideas, and issues the WG has not already discussed.

· WG members to flag recommendations where further discussion is needed, i.e., text that is better discussed during working group meeting time instead via the PCRT or on list.

· WG to consider ICANN org’s comment on Rec. 35, i.e., - An alternative bulk transfer fee model where registries with fewer than 50,000 domains cannot charge fees, and registries with >50,000 domains share the $50,000 cap.

1. Welcome and Chair Updates

2. Continue Discussion of Group 2 Recs 29-47 (TEAC, TDRP, Bulk Transfers) using Public Comment Review Tool

Recommendation 31: TEAC Communication Updates

Comments Received: Concerns were raised regarding the need for continual updates (every 72 hours) for unresolved cases that have escalated to external venues (e.g., court cases). The suggestion was to allow the gaining registrar to terminate updates once the issue is escalated.

Discussion Points: Rich Brown highlighted that the current policy allows the gaining registrar to declare the issue closed informally, thus eliminating the need for additional policy language. Rick Wilhelm supported retaining the current text, stating that unresolved cases escalated to external venues inherently mark resolution under the policy. WG Chair emphasized that the existing language already provides the necessary flexibility.

Group Decision: Maintain the current text without additional language, as the process for closing disputes is already implicit.

Recommendation 32: Communication Methods for TEAC

Comments Received: Suggestions to replace email communication with a centralized system for security and consistency similar to RDRS (ticketing system).

Discussion Points:

• Implementing a centralized system would be impractical given the process is informal and doesn’t require further policy language. 
• The WG chose for traceability and simplicity, especially given the nature of TEAC cases.
• The idea of a centralized system was discussed previously and dismissed for various reasons. 

Group Decision: Retain original text of recommendation.

Recommendation 33: TDRP and Registrant Access

Comments Received: WG made a request to GNSO Council for an Issue Report to explore suitable mechanisms to explore pros and cons of a TDRP. Comments were supportive of exploring this potential mechanism. One commenter suggested that an Issue Report is not needed but that this group could expand the TDRP to registrant filer.  The other comments suggested to delete the whole recommendation as they oppose any judicial procedures for handling transfer disputes.

Discussion Points:

• Expanding TDRP to registrants would not solve all of the issues mentioned, particularly with respect to compromised accounts.
• The WG is not recommending a new dispute mechanism but recommending the GNSO Council explore this topic given its complexity.
• Registrants can be more involved and file a complaint.
• The issue is of paramount importance to registrants and whatever is decided upon this recommendation, it should not be in conflict, and should not stop any informal processes that the registrar has between themselves when there is a dispute.

Group Decision: No agreement to include additional language to recommendation. Informational text should be moved into footnote. Let GNSO Council explore the matter.

Recommendation 34: Registry Fees for Portfolio Transfers

Comments Received: Clarify the distinction between voluntary and involuntary transfers. Suggest splitting clauses to improve clarity. The second comment that supported the change is in relation to 34.2. 34.2 talks about how the registry may choose to waive the fee associated with the full portfolio transfers.

Discussion Points:

• Agree to renaming the recommendation to remove references to voluntary/involuntary to reduce ambiguity.
• ICANN provided additional context on its comment, and specifically suggested an alternative fee model where registries with fewer than 50,000 domains cannot charge fees, while registries with more domains share the $50,000 cap.

Group Decision: Retitle the recommendation to remove "voluntary/involuntary." Split clauses for clarity. Further discussion required on Michael Song’s proposed fee model.

Recommendation 35: $50,000 Transfer Fee Ceiling

Comments Received: Concerns about the $50,000 ceiling being arbitrary and costly. Requests to include mandatory timeframes for transfers to protect registrants.

Discussion Points:

• This question was deliberated significantly, and the WG came to the conclusion that the $50,000 ceiling is a fair and predictable cap for transfer fees. Members agreed that imposing strict timelines is impractical due to the varying complexity of transfers.

Group Decision: No changes to recommendation text.

Recommendation 40: Registrar Notification for BTAPPA

Comments Received: Comments suggested incorporating footnotes directly into the recommendation text for clarity – in case text is meant to be authoritative.

Discussion Points: Group members supported incorporating footnotes directly into the recommendation.

Group Decision: Include footnotes in the recommendation text.

Recommendation 41: Expansion of BTAPPA to Registrar Agents

Comments Received: One comment included support of expanding the transfer policy to include BTAPPA. Commenter recommended that the WG make clear that the qualifying circumstances required for BTAPPA should remain required in the transfer policy. Other comments asked for clarification of term “reseller”.

Discussion Points:

• The WG is going to maintain the fact that the registry may deny BTAPPA requests – meaning BTAPPA will not always get executed.
• Consider removing the word an agent of the registrar.

Recommendation 42: Required Registrar Notifications of BTAPPA

Comments Received: Comments proposed adding a clause to ensure notifications are documented and accessible for compliance.

Group Decision: Agreement to add proposed language to new clause in recommendation, “regardless of the means used to notify registrants, Registrars MUST document, retain, and make notifications available to ICANN org to facilitate the investigation of a BTAPPA complaint.”

Recommendation 46:

Comments Received: One comment is about concerns regarding the potential costs associated with this expansion. Other comment asked instead of leaving it open on how the notice of fees is transmitted to registrars, could there be a standard way to provide this.

Discussion points:

• It’s not necessary to include means of communication in the policy text for this.
• The group discussed multiple ways that registries could provide this, and the WG decided to to make it flexible and and leave it that way.

3. Begin Discussion of Additional Questions posed in Public Comment Forum (Q1 – Q3) using Public Comment Review Tool

• The group reviewed outstanding tasks, focusing on recommendations not previously considered, report format updates, and general comments.
• Feedback on IDN variant transfers concluded that no changes were necessary, while concerns about earlier inputs being overlooked were addressed by improving documentation transparency.

4. 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

Website: www.icann.org