Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from this week’s meeting. The next meeting will take place on Tuesday, 05 November 2024 at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the TPR WG Support Team 2024-10-29 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call<https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2024-10-29+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call> AI: Ken Herman to consult with his stakeholder group on the “reasonable basis” language in lifting the 30-day transfer lock and determine if there’s a preferred middle ground. AI: Members to consider any additional language or criteria to clarify when and how the lock might be lifted, aiming to provide guidance while ensuring registrant security. AI: Members to assess whether specifying UTC as the primary time standard in transfer notifications is suitable and practical, with the option to include other time zones as a secondary reference. AI: Rich Brown to consider possible data-sharing limitations regarding providing identity and contact information of the transfer requester and report back if further clarification is needed. AI: Assignment 4 - Recs #29-33 (Group 2 TEAC + TDRP) 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/1lyX27uECA5bNKRw-UOIH2bAaTRvec1YkX1EKjtHCsAQ/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!_X7DKSYb7e85FxnRNdc5SZjsc8IFhABOG3MWey7Nes_4UnN0wplx4ZSNsaf4IKr2lqSrt3re6gd-qz87xd1Cji0J$> 2. Link to Rec Drafting Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YODFe-aZOi1AQ3c8f2-y8MXtcUU4PjzsByFzk-dp... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1YODFe-aZOi1AQ3c8f2-y8MXtcUU4PjzsByFzk-dpAD4/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!_X7DKSYb7e85FxnRNdc5SZjsc8IFhABOG3MWey7Nes_4UnN0wplx4ZSNsaf4IKr2lqSrt3re6gd-qz87xToKg8I6$> 1. Welcome and Chair Updates * Jothan Frakes updated his SOI and stated that he is a member of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. 2. Continue Discussion of Recs 17-24 * Recommendation 17 (Transfer Confirmation): There was considerable discussion on the suggestion that the transfer confirmation (formerly losing FOA) should not include a direct link for immediate approval due to security concerns. Some members supported this change, advocating for a safer process that would avoid phishing risks, while others highlighted the importance of registrant control over transfer speed. * Recommendation 18 (Transfer Lock Post-Transfer): The group debated the proposed 30-day mandatory lock after an inter-registrar transfer. Concerns centred on whether the registrar should have discretion to lift the lock in specific cases. The group decided to revisit the language around “reasonable basis” for lifting the lock in a future discussion. AI: Ken Herman to consult with his stakeholder group on the “reasonable basis” language in lifting the 30-day transfer lock and determine if there’s a preferred middle ground. AI: Members to consider any additional language or criteria to clarify when and how the lock might be lifted, aiming to provide guidance while ensuring registrant security. * Recommendation 19 (Transfer Completion Notification): There was general agreement on specifying the date and time of transfer in UTC for consistency, though members noted the potential need to accommodate other time zones. A proposed requirement to include the requesting entity’s contact details was debated, with concerns about privacy and compliance raised. AI: Members to assess whether specifying UTC as the primary time standard in transfer notifications is suitable and practical, with the option to include other time zones as a secondary reference. AI: Rich Brown to consider possible data-sharing limitations regarding providing identity and contact information of the transfer requester and report back if further clarification is needed. * Recommendations 21-22 (Transfer Denial Criteria): Members discussed the nuances of evidence requirements in cases of fraud or DNS abuse. While some requested that registrars be required to provide specific evidence upon denying a transfer, others noted potential legal limitations. Members also reviewed language clarifications suggested by ICANN Org for better compliance. * Recommendation 24 (Transfer Denial Conditions): The registrar stakeholder group proposed adding implementation guidance for the phrase “registrar lock.” The group accepted this addition, which aims to clarify transfer lock application without constraining registrars to a single technical approach. 1. Discuss CORD Recs 25-28 * Recommendation 25: Discussion focused on treating privacy and proxy services differently in change-of-registrant scenarios. One comment received emphasized that changes involving proxy service providers should be carefully distinguished from general privacy-related changes due to their impact on the registrant status. * Recommendations 26-28: Due to time constraints, a full discussion on Recommendations 26-28 will continue in the next meeting. 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>