Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the notes and action items from yesterday’s meeting. The next meeting will take place on Tuesday, 10 December 2024 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the TPR WG Support Team 2024-12-03 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call<https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2024-12-03+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 Items: WG members to gather further input from their stakeholder group on Recommendation 18. 1. Welcome and Chair Updates * Target to finalize initial comments by year-end, and to begin final report writing in January. * Update on board liaison: Alan Barrett will join future meetings as a liaison to align the board with the working group’s progress on final report. 1. Continue Review of Draft Revisions to Recs 3-28 * Recommendation 18 * ICANN Org presented updates incorporating feedback to include a non-exhaustive list of reasons under “reasonable basis.” * Ken Herman highlighted limited feedback from his stakeholder group, noting preference for specificity (18.3) but agreeing to leave the current text as-is until further input. * Chair suggested retaining the itemized reasons and asked for WG members to bring this back to all their groups for further feedback on this. * Decision: Keep the language as proposed, pending further stakeholder group feedback. * Recommendation 21 * ICANN Org introduced updates requiring registrars to provide specific rationale and evidence, upon request, for denying a transfer due to fraud or DNS abuse. * Rich Brown emphasized operational burdens of providing detailed evidence upfront and suggested “registrars may provide specific rationale/evidence upon requests” in the text. * Theo Geurts explained the importance of registrars’ evidence collection process, aligning with DNS abuse mitigation, and already starts earlier in the process. * Recommendation 22 * ICANN Org updated on additional language to Rec 22, where comments pointed out that mention of “lock” in this case can be confusing. * Chair confirmed that proposed changes are fine and don’t change the substance of the recommendation. * Recommendation 26 * ICANN Org presented comments to Rec where removing Section II.B. of the Transfer Policy was considered as too impactful. * WG members pointed out that keeping the text seemed duplicative at the time. * Members argued the content was redundant and not directly related to transfers but more to registration data policy. * Zak Muscovitch suggested keeping the text related to updating registrant data. * Discussion on keeping the word “confirmed” in 26.1. WG members discussed that it recommends removing the confirmation process and Designated Agent. * Chair proposed removing the proposed language for 26.1. * Recommendation 27 * ICANN Org presented the comment on clarifying the actions that a registrar would have to take if there was a potentially invalid or unauthorized change of registrant data. * Chair and WG members pointed out that the above is part of a different policy and should not be covered by transfer policy. * WG member inquired whether 27.8 is covered elsewhere, to which the Chair noted that CORD notifications are new. Therefore 27.8 will remain in place unless duplicative language is discovered. * Recommendation 17 * Theo Geurts went back to his SG and inquired whether they can create a system where the registrant confirms the transfer within a reseller registrant portal, which would take an expansion of the API. * Chair pointed out that some resellers might not want to implement an API/speed up system and obligations in the TPR do not oblige them to do so. 1. Begin Discussion of Recs 29-33 * Recommendation 29 * ICANN Org presented comments received to remove any reference to calendar days to avoid potential inconsistencies. * ICANN Org also presented comments referring to a potential double standard where registrants are not granted the same leeway as Rrs in terms of timeline. * WG members argued that extending the current timeline 4 hours to 24 hours is actually more registrant friendly. UDRP and URS remain out of scope for this WG. * Recommendation 30 * ICANN Org presented comments that proposed the word “timely” in the Rec should be better defined. * Chair explained that the current text gives enough flexibility, particularly since it discusses emergency situations. 1. Begin Discussion of Recs 34-46 2. 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>