Dear TPR WG members, Please find below the brief notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next meeting will be in two weeks on Tuesday, 11 July at 1600 UTC. Best regards, Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 1. Re: Recap Outcomes from ICANN77 Meeting on TEAC and TDRP -- charter questions f5, and g3, g4, and g5 -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrUdhnGiftP5CGHvuOoHqKPOhGnU46... and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1rE...; WG members to review the text in the two documents and provide comments in advance of the next meeting on Tuesday, 11 July. 2. Re: Bulk Transfers – WG to review charter questions in advance of the discussion at the next meeting: * i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances * i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers Notes: Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #95 Proposed Agenda 27 June 2023 1. Welcome and Chair updates 2. Recap Outcomes from ICANN77 Meeting * WG to review draft Charter Question Responses to Remaining TDRP Charter Questions and updated TEAC response f5) Do telephone communications provide a sufficient “paper trail” for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer “undo” based on failure by a TEAC to respond? See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrUdhnGiftP5CGHvuOoHqKPOhGnU46... Proposed language: “ [if the primary TEAC communication channel is designated as a phone number or other method], the verbal/non-email communication must be accompanied by an email communication to the TEAC.” g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered? See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1rE... “Draft Preliminary Recommendation: The Working Group recommends the GNSO request an Issues Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of (i) expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and (ii) creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. In making this recommendation, the Working Group recognizes that if such an effort were ultimately adopted by the GNSO Council, this request could be resource-intensive and will require the Council to consider the appropriate timing and priority against other policy efforts.” * Steinar -- Question: Will the recommendation result in a new PDP? Answer: It could, but the GNSO will have the final say. If the PDP is initiated it would be a new separate effort. It would also need to be prioritized so difficult to determine the timing. During the scoping of the charter phase the duration would be mapped out. No way to predict how long the policy effort would be, but could easily be a minimum of 18 months. * Sarah -- Question: We don’t have a transfer undo that the registrar can follow? Answer: Roger – We discuss that and never agreed on a recommendation. g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law? g5) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization? See also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1rE... ACTION ITEM Re: Recap Outcomes from ICANN77 Meeting on TEAC and TDRP charter questions f5, and g3, g4, and g5 -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zBYIaFTF5bRrUdhnGiftP5CGHvuOoHqKPOhGnU46... and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2DNZLxCKfmoSyffCiUL7lot3V3Zk96X5Q3ea1rE...; WG members to review the text in the two documents and provide comments in advance of the next meeting on Tuesday, 11 July. 3. ICANN-Approved Transfer (Bulk Transfers) – see attached slides. Work Plan: * We are on meeting #95. * ICANN-approved transfers to start at the next meeting. * New project package to be released for Council July meeting. * Overview of Current Policy Requirements * Transfer Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en>, Section I.B – slides 3-6. * Overview of Final Issues Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-issue-report-pdp-transfer-policy-review-12jan21-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!_uNJXwoANZEsSFHOan16WCka_33DqkPTmIPdMtimGy7ysiKbiR6TPR8r2jisx7rgwL3S6xsEgMANlSiVOWiYwiP4mXFORzkGuJcp$> * pp. 49-51 * ICANN org input * Public comments received * Charter Questions * i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances * i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers? * Early input received * Initial Working Group Reactions Discussion: * Catherine: Not sure if the suggested fee is reasonable. * Theo: Still work to be done. More and more difficult to do for most parties. Lacking the possibility of a reseller to transfer in bulk. * Roger: Sounds like there could be a partial bulk move – could see what that looks like. * Owen: Consider about going after acquisitions and fees; re: resellers – that is happening now because it is not prohibited. Need to make sure there are a basic set of minimum requirements (registrar suggestion in public comments). * Roger: Security recommendations hamper bulk transfers. * Rick: Re: RySG comment on fees – haven’t discussed what that fee structure might be changed to. The challenges regarding de-credited registrars would be mitigated if they were handled more quickly, but this is not a registry position. * Roger: Heard discussed – when a portfolio is moved (2000+ names) there is a balance that needs to happen. Might be some bigger tweaks. We can dig into these really well. * Jothan: Since 2008 the concept of premium names has come into play. We want to factor in that there may be names that come over that may be premium that may come into play for pricing. * Roger: Something to consider – any wording to suggest? There are new issues today that we weren’t looking at in 2008. Key is to look at the two charter questions for the meeting on 11 July. ACTION ITEM re: Bulk Transfers – WG to review charter questions in advance of the discussion at the next meeting: * i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances * i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers? 4. AOB