Dear TPR Work Group members, The Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) is the At-Large forum for discussing policy related issues and giving advice to the ICANN community. At-Large is represented in the GNSO transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (TPR-PDP) with 2 members, 2 alternates and 4 observers. The At-Large TPR-PDP members continuously inform the CPWG members about the progress in the TPR-PDP working group and seek feedback and advice in essential questions given by the work in the TPR-PDP. In order to get the CPWG input to questions connected to preventing transfers to be initiated and executed after an initial registration of a generic domain name, and after a successful transfer between accredited registrar of a generic domain name, a “poll” was held during the CPWG meeting on November 17 2021. The “poll” was conducted based on the discussion held at the CPWG meeting on November 10 2021 and the email communication on the CPWG mailing list. While not mandated in ICANN policy, some Registry Operators have provisions in their Registry Agreement that require a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock after the initial registration of a domain name AND/OR after a successful inter-registrar transfer. Note: This should not be confused with Change of Registrant requirements where a “material change” of name or email address will also lock the domain against inter-registrar transfers for 60 days following the Change of Registrant, if the registrant does not opt-out of this lock. Some TPR-PDP working group members have noted that this practice of post-domain creation locks or post inter-registrar transfer locks are not consistent across the industry, which may be confusing for registrants. Some TPR working group members believe that the working group should recommend that the Transfer Policy include requirements for the 60-day lock after initial registration, although the working group is still discussing the rationale for doing so. During the CPWG meeting that was held, it was a privilege to have some members who were historically available during the creation of the 60-days lock. This gave the members a real understanding of the lock. The 60-days lock was introduced in 1998/1999 to reduce credit card fraud and chargeback. The majority of the CPWG members argued that credit card checks and chargeback is no longer a problem. When questioned, a significant number of the CPWG members were in favour of not defining an ICANN policy requiring a 60-days lock after an initial registration of a domain name. The result of the poll questioning whether an ICANN required policy for a 60-days lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer, indicated a majority was in favour of not defining an ICANN policy of a 60-days lock after a successful transfer. However, the number for keeping a lock after a successful transfer was higher than for having a lock after an initial registration of a domain name. CPWG members signaled that locking a domain name after a successful transfer reduces the possibility for “registrar hopping ‘’ i.e. changing registrars to prevent paying and (often) continuing with suspicious activity as security threats. An issue of Domain Hijacking was sighted as a pro when the domain lock is disabled. Hence the need for poll questions connecting to whether there should be an option for registrars and registrants to “opt-out” of locking a domain name for transfer either after the initial registration or a successful inter-registrar transfer, indicated that this should NOT be an option. Finally, the CPWG members were asked to get their view on whether the “60-days” was the preferred number for a transfer lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer. The poll’s alternatives were “yes” (keep the 60-days), “lower than 60 days”, “higher than 60-days” and “Abstain/not sure”. A majority of the CPWG members were in favor of a lower number of days locking a transfer after a successful inter-registrar transfer. It must be emphasized that the outcome of the “poll” is NOT the final input to these questions. The poll result MUST be seen as a guidance to At-Large TPR-PDP members. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød