Dear TPR WG members,

Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meetings at ICANN79, Sessions 1 & 2. 

The next meeting will be Tuesday, 19 March 2024 at 1600 UTC.

Kind regards,

Christian, Caitlin, Feodora, Berry and Julie

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: None captured.

Transfer Policy Review

Proposed Agenda

02 March 2024

ICANN79 Session 1 – See attached slides.

1. Welcome and Chair updates

• Got a packed agenda with two sessions over the next three hours.

2.    Group 1(b) Change of Registrant Data (CORD) Draft Recommendation Review – “Where We Stand”

a.    Recap of current draft CORD recommendations – Start at slide 3.

Discussion:

Slides 7-8:

• Question: New policy/expanding TDRP for registrants filing – says “and”, which seems like a redundancy, instead of “or”? Answer: Maybe that should be an “or”?
• Not that we would be doing both, but “and” means we are exploring both.

Slides 9-11:

• WG is still discussing what to do with Prelim Rec 2 – having a COR standalone policy.
• Question: This comes out of the policy and goes elsewhere? Who is that directed at? Answer: We will provide the Rec to GNSO Council so they can decide.
• It is up to the GNSO Council.
• Re: Designated Agent – won’t be defined in the transfer policy, but can still exist.
• We put a lot of time into how other policies relate to this.

Slides 12-15:

• Question: Applies to other emails too? Answer: Not being specific in case things change.
• Question: Does “unless” to both or just to the new one? Answer: Should only apply to the new email address.
• Wondering if we could amend 3.4: Don’t think there can be a non-material change to a email address.  Take out “material”.  Also wonder on 3.5 if we are saying what you cannot do – are we  setting precedent?  Giving permission?  Good to include because we have questions about what can be done.  Do think there is precedent in the Registration Data Policy.  Also, any change is considered  material so good to take out.
• Who can opt out? Registrants might have turned off notifications – both new and old.
• Re: 3.5 – Maybe change to “MAY”.
• Maybe we can come back to the question of which RNH the CORD opt out applies to at a subsequent meeting? I'm still feeling uncertain about it

Opt out additional discussion --- Rec 3.4 and Rec 4:

• Some aspects of opt out are unclear.
• Thinking we should require that the new RNH gets the notice – how would they know they are now under a contract?
• Most registrars would send two notices anyway.
• Question: Rec 4.1 --- do we add “and a change of registrant data has occurred”?  Answer: That make sense and seems to be the intent of the WG.
• We need an email address to opt out – but we are saying we are sending notifications to gaining and losing RNHs even if opting out.  We need to clear that up to now it reads that notifications are by email address.
• Sometimes both parties already know, but it still makes sense that they both receive.
• We are overcomplicating this: We need to write it in the singular to make it more clear.  Also, you can’t opt out when you don’t have the name.  When a name gets register or transferred in (in bound) it is covered by a different policy.  Per registration (domain name).

Slides 16-17:

• When we are looking at all the accounts people have then you can have a lot of notifications.  This gives users some control to reduce notifications in an informed way.

END SESSION 1 NOTES

ICANN79 Session 2

1. Welcome and Chair updates

• No updates.

Continuation from Session 1:

3.    Revisiting Group 1(a) 30-day transfer restriction – start with slide 20

a. Recap of existing recommendations

Discussion – see questions on slide 27:

• Questions: Any issues with Compliance? Answer: Concern at the time was that there needs to be some objective yardstick, so we put in some criteria.
• Doesn’t create a right to override the 30-day restriction.
• Being able to point to policy is sometimes helpful with customers.
• 30-day restriction is consistent across the policy.
• Would think it would apply more to people with larger domain portfolios.
• All kinds of scenarios where this fluidity would be helpful.
• Question: Think about what it means to have a “Established Relationship” – what if requested in a problematic way?  Answer: Can be investigated and denied.
• Brings back the responsibility of the sponsoring registrar.
• Sounds like the WG supports it, but is there proof that the registrar has to provide?
• Need a definition of a “regular interaction”.  Could be a series of business interactions.
• Should we apply it to new registrations?  
• Not clear that someone other than the RNH could request it.  Not clear.
• Other recs apply to cases of fraud.
• You want to have some restrictions in place for registrar is not holding the bag – registrar can verify and authorize or not.
• If this results in consensus policy then the RAA is subject to that.
• Do we see much fraud with transferring out?  We’ve seen some.
• Don’t see how the logic wouldn’t hold for a 30-day post-creation lock.  Would be consistent.
• Determination: Seems the WG likes this and it should apply to a post-transfer and a post-creation lock.

b. Updates needed in light of current CORD recommendations  - exemptions needed?

• Don’t see an impact.

c. Open mic – invitation for community feedback (in room and online)

• None.

4.     Any other business – Next meeting in two weeks on 19 March.