Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be at ICANN77 on Thursday, 15 June at 10:45-12:15 EDT/14:45-16:15 UTC. See: https://icann77.sched.com/event/1NMuG/gnso-transfer-policy-review-pdp-workin.... Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 1. WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkm... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2...> and note anything that might be missing or require clarification. Also review the table on slide 7 of the attached slides. 2. Staff to create a Google doc of the questions for interested WG members to add their names by Thursday, 08 June to volunteer to speak to the question. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KX9kw7Sd1xz8BoOnUh1TvYRVtwKSNrOIMyQSlFaK.... Staff to provide talking points. Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #94 Proposed Agenda 30 May 2023 1. Welcome and Chair Updates * No updates provided. 2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call * The group agreed to Staff's summary of charter questions g1 and g2, and a draft of the responses was subsequently sent to the group for its review. * Homework for this call: * We asked the group to review the use cases identified from IRTP-D for a registrant transfer dispute resolution policy and see if those captured the gap they believe exists; * We presented an overview of the data that is transferred b/w parties/provider/panel for the TDRP and asked the group to provide any concerns or red flags with respect to data minimization. 3. Additional Use Cases Charter Question g3 (draft scenarios) – See attached slides. * Use Cases from IRTP D Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefi...>, please see pp. 41-42 * Two registrant claimants dispute to be the Registered Name Holder immediately prior to or directly following an inter-registrar transfer (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role) * Two registrant claimants dispute who is the Registered Name Holder of a domain name without an inter-registrant transfer having taken place. There are a number of reasons for such a situation to occur, including – but not limited to – a contractor registering a domain for a client, two business partners splitting, admin contact leave a company but remains listed in the Whois database. (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role) * Any other use cases from the WG that need to be considered? Discussion: * Goal for the use cases to be stepping stone – are there other use cases? * If there is support for this, consider whether to include text to notify the Council of a potential gap. * Use cases considered by ITRP-D still seem relevant today. 4. Charter Question g4 -- See attached slides 6, 7, and 8. g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? 5. Charter Question g5 -- See attached slides. g5) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization? Discussion: * Are the data required all of the time (i.e., postal address) – what data sharing can we eliminate? * Is everything on slide 7 needed? * Data minimization is the law in some cases – remove the items marked with asterisk. * We have draft updated text related to Rec 27 updates, that covers some of these items – this question is whether there are data protection issues even after the changes from Rec 27. * Note the item from last week’s meeting: ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkm... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2...> and note anything that might be missing or require clarification. Also review the table on slide 7 of the attached slides. 6. Planning for ICANN77 Volunteers to facilitate charter question discussions: Note that the charter questions and draft responses have been circulated: * TEAC Charter Question Responses [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrU...> * TDRP Charter Question Responses [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1lBwsxDMfp74aA...> Staff can provide talking points for any of the volunteers. Also at ICANN77 staff will seek volunteers to participate in a role-playing exercise on a registrant initiated transfer dispute mechanism. ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a Google doc of the questions for interested WG members to add their names by Thursday, 08 June to volunteer to speak to the question. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KX9kw7Sd1xz8BoOnUh1TvYRVtwKSNrOIMyQSlFaK.... Staff to provide talking points. CHARTER QUESTION VOLUNTEER f1) Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism? If so, what data is needed? f2) To what extent should the 4-hour time frame be revisited in light of these concerns? Are there alternative means to address the underlying concerns other than adjusting the time frame? f4) Section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy states that “Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner, within a reasonable period of time following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain.” The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team noted that this timeframe should be more clearly defined. Is additional guidance needed to define a “reasonable period of time” after which registrars should be expected to use a standard dispute resolution process? Sarah f5) Do telephone communications provide a sufficient “paper trail” for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer “undo” based on failure by a TEAC to respond? Sarah f6/f7 The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team indicated that there are several factors that make a Registry Operator’s obligation to “undo” a transfer under Section 6.4 of the Transfer Policy challenging: