Thanks. I don’t wanna take your time and the group’s but public comments at ICANN (similar to many other bureaucratic processes) are never addressed in a way that can add issues to the policy discussion. They are there for the working group to provide responses and make us feel consulted. And we (NCSG) can’t reopen issues (unlike GAC). Anyhow, just a few points to consider and I will relay these general procedural issues which are not specific to this policy group to the Council. On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 7:46 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Farzaneh,
Thanks for your response. The public comment period on the Initial Report is a good opportunity for the NCSG and any other interested parties to provide additional substantive input that they feel the working group has not sufficiently taken into account. The working group will consider all comments in further deliberations after the public comment period.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, 9 June 2022 at 16:28 *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] A few issues
Thanks Emily. So they decided not to do any work because we didn’t even address these two issues. The issue of sanctions, I understand it might be out of mandate but the transfer fee is something ALAC and NCSG brought up and it should have been addressed by this group, even if it was dismissing it.
I also think other than ICANN compliance, those at ICANN involved with registrants rights and responsibilities should have been involved with this group.
I am going to raise this with the GNSO later but we keep doing policy work during meetings. Some of us don’t do policy at ICANN as our day job. We have other commitments. Notes are great but we still miss the boat if we can’t attend the meetings. I would like to see a more hybrid approach where we can actually make policy through written conversations on mailing lists so that we get to reply. This is very important especially for the registrants rights and bringing more diverse points of views.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 6:34 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Farzaneh,
The working group circled back to these two items during yesterday’s working group meeting. Meeting notes and recording are available here <https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2022-06-07+Transfer+Policy+Review...>. On the Zoom recording [icann.zoom.us] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/rec/play/4v47jJJKGtv79CIQjg...>, they are discussed beginning at minute 5:00.
As detailed in the notes and recording, at this time, the working group has not reached any agreement to pursue additional work on these topics and questions remain about whether they are in scope.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
*From: *GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 14:17 *To: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *[GNSO-TPR] A few issues
Dear all,
I was wondering if we addressed the following issues at some point as I don't see them in the preliminary recommendations:
1. Sanctions: there have been instances of registrars or registries finding out that the domain name registrant is located or is providing services to ordinary residents of sanctioned countries. In some cases they have been able to transfer smoothly. But in others the notice to transfer was too short and it amounted to confiscation of a domain name. sometimes the registrars change jurisdiction and suddenly stop serving domain name registrants in sanctioned countries which is over compliance with the sanctions anyway. But they do that on regular basis. Up to this point ICANN has allowed this to happen since this is within the remit of internal governance of registries and registrars. Can we discuss this issue a little bit more?
2. Fees: I can't find anything in our recommendations about excessive transfer fees. Fee setting by ICANN creates complications but can we mention that non-malicious transfer should be free or transfer fee should be reasonably priced?
Best regards,
Farzaneh
--
Farzaneh
-- Farzaneh