Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from yesterday’s meeting. The next meeting will take place on Tuesday 21 May 2024 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Christian, Caitlin, Berry, Julie and Feodora 2024-05-14 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call<https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2024-05-14+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call> Action Items: * Registry Representatives to review Recommendations 40 - 47 (BTAPPA recommendations) and re-confirm the text is acceptable for the purpose of publishing the recommendations for public comment. * The draft text can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14zrGOcRHd-b94Ok13rFFtH1AIJp-AIIjoG8fJRNz... and the previous working document with redlining can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9... 1. Welcome and Chair Updates * Updates from CPH Summit i. During the CP Summit, there was a working lunch on TPR. ii. The chair went through the 14 recommendations that would require additional technical work. iii. The session was not recorded, but minutes will be shared with the group. 1. CORD Recommendations and Rationale [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!_MUfNbomNTQyqhT91XyB56tHnSEzkfJvn_HWsO86J9kAgIcS-7hfGEixSdr2pYatZHO6bLNvSsEfPPT1Ujtvzb4pKhI$> * Discuss any final questions or rationale input before closing CORD topic i. ICANN Org presented the rationale document – no additional comments were made to the text ii. It seems the WG is content with the provided rationale 1. Return to TPR Group 2: outstanding questions from ICANN Org * Brief recap of ICANN-approved transfers recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit__;!!PtGJab4!_MUfNbomNTQyqhT91XyB56tHnSEzkfJvn_HWsO86J9kAgIcS-7hfGEixSdr2pYatZHO6bLNvSsEfPPT1UjtvNKbPBcU$> i. ICANN Org provided an overview of Recs that might need further discussion ii. ICANN Org mentioned recommendations on section B around ICANN approved transfers, which also includes a section on fees, when there is an ICANN approved transfer involving more than 50000 names. iii. Industry has changed since this policy language was introduced that many full portfolio transfers, or when the when the registrar sells it's full farm to another registrar, and all of those domain names are transferred. The group looked into what an appropriate fee might look like in this case. iv. Does the group want to keep the status quo? Rec35: Trigger at 50 000 names and registry has the option to charge a fee or not. v. The above does not apply to involuntary bulk transfers. vi. Rec 35 notes, however, that when there are multiple registry operators that collective fee cannot exceed that $50,000 threshold. vii. The following recommendations discuss how the fee can be apportioned, and how that process would work. viii. Rec 36 discusses the reduction of fee adjustment for full portfolio transfers involving multople registry operators. ix. Rec 37 and onward discusshow that process would work. x. Recommendation. 39 notes that any fees charged by the registry operator would be ultimately paid for by the gaining registrar. xi. ICANN Org discussed that BTAPPA would be included in the policy. xii. ICANN Org included additional language in Rec 40 to make of BTAPP inclusion for initial report etc. AI: Registry Representatives to review Recommendations 40 - 47 (BTAPPA recommendations) and re-confirm the text is acceptable for the purpose of publishing the recommendations for public comment. The draft text can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14zrGOcRHd-b94Ok13rFFtH1AIJp-AIIjoG8fJRNz... and the previous working document with redlining can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9... * Questions and discussion with GDS staff i. ICANN Org service provider for bulk transfers pointed out that from an operational perspective the above recommendations might require a lot of effort to implement. ii. ICANN Org presented a transfer example that would illustrate the impact of the policy in processing the involuntary termination. iii. WG hinted towards automation of process? WG compared the issue with similar issues registries face and that they found an automated solution for where possible. iv. ICANN Org suggested that the fee distributed across various service providers would take a lot of work to be determined. Maybe the fee is too low? v. WG explained that the amount that each registrar is due can be immediately determined, based on the portfolio of the sponsoring. vi. ICANN Org reminded that WG came up with Rec 37 to 39 since it was not self evident how many names would be transferred. vii. ICANN Org posed the question: if its self evident, do we need the Rec or is there another possible solution in place? viii. WG explained that number might change slightly due to the dynamic of the landscape, but the involvement of the multiple registry operators should be visible from early on and self-evident. ix. WG proposed to keep the fees as is and wait for the public comment to assess further. x. Chair reminded that the fees are set and WG is only describing how they should be distributed. xi. ICANN Org explained that the distribution of the 50 000 dollar fee might be operationally difficult. Maybe there could be a minimum threshold? For instance only TLDs with more than 1000 domains etc. xii. WG explained that implementing a threshold at TLD level might not caputure all the work and might not be feasible. 1. 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>