/
2022-11-17 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

2022-11-17 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Mar 02, 2025

The call for the Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group will take place on Thursday, 17 November 2022 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/4j68zdtk

PROPOSED AGENDA

  1. Roll Call & SOI updates

  2. Welcome and Chair Updates

  3. Verification of TAC Validity – Recommendation 10 (Public Comment Review Tool and Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

  4. TAC is One-Time Use – Recommendation 11 (Public Comment Review Tool and Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

  5. Service Level Agreement (SLA) for TAC Provision – Recommendation 12 (Public Comment Review Tool and Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

  6. TAC Time to Live (TTL) – Recommendation 13 (Public Comment Review Tool and Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com]) and question for community input (Public Comment Review Tool and Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

  7. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS



PARTICIPATION

Apologies: Richard Wilhelm (RySG), Sarah Wyld (RrSG)

Alternates: Beth Bacon (RySG), Rich Brown (RrSG)

Attendance

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript (see Zoom recording, chat tab)

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

 

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

 

  1. Jothan Frakes, Jim Galvin, Jody Kolker, and Rick Wilhelm have volunteered to compile a list of attack vectors and how the recommendations solve for them, or where they are out of scope.

Recommendation 10:

  1. a) Concern -- Staff to see where the discussion on the Losing FOA falls and then to tidy up the language in recommendations and rationales.

  2. b) Proposed edit -- Staff to amend the recommendation according to the strawman revision suggested in the potential next step.

Recommendation 11:

  1. b) Proposed edit -- Staff to revise the recommendation either according to the potential next step in the strawman revision of “unset the TAC” or retaining the term “clear” with a definition in a footnote.

  2. c) Proposed Edit -- Jim Galvin to bring this issue back to the Registry SG for discussion/consideration.

Recommendation 13:

  1. d) Proposed edit -- Staff to update the language to “Registry” from “Registries”.

  2. e) Proposed edit -- Staff to revise the language according to the Strawman revision suggested in the Potential next step.

  3. f) Proposed edit -- Staff to revise the language according to the Strawman revision suggested in the Potential next step, except to change to “reset the TAC to null.”

  4. Question to the community -- Staff to call for volunteers to consider whether to 1) maintain the recommendation as is – that the registries enforces;  2) add language to the current recommendation; 3) change it to the Registrars to manage the TTL; or 4) not to specify who enforces it.  Volunteers during the meeting are: Jim Galvin, Rick Wilhelm (need to confirm), Jody Kolker, and John Woodworth.



Notes:

 

Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #67

Proposed Agenda

17 November 2022

 

  1. Roll Call & SOI updates

2. Welcome and Chair Updates

  • Just one meeting next week on the 22nd – no meeting on the 24th due to the US holiday.

  • Comments on redlined recommendations 3-9 and strawman for recommendation 2 are due by 30 November.

  • Previously discussed enhancing the rationales, but didn’t include that for recommendations 3-9; once we are closer to finalizing recommendations staff will adjust the rationales as necessary, also to take into account the work of the small team on threat vectors.

3. Verification of TAC Validity – Recommendation 10 (Public Comment Review Tooland Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

a) Concern:



Discussion:

  • This is a concern raised with respect to a number of recommendations.

  • This is more a continuation of operational values as opposed to a security feature.

  • Editorial exercise – careful that the TAC does not eliminate the Losing FOA – the Losing FOA is implemented differently in the new system.

ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 10, a) Concern -- Staff to see where the discussion on the Losing FOA falls and then to tidy up the language in recommendations and rationales.



b) Proposed edit



Discussion:

  • WG agrees with the potential next step – strawman revision.

ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 10, b) Proposed edit -- Staff to amend the recommendation according to the strawman revision suggested in the potential next step.



4. TAC is One-Time Use – Recommendation 11 (Public Comment Review Tooland Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

a) Concern



Discussion:

  • WG agrees that no changes are necessary.



b) Proposed edit



Discussion:

  • More natural to say “unset”, but not aware that there have been concerns about this phrasing.  Should be apparent that it should be the opposite of what the registrar is doing.

  • WG agrees that the suggested text in the strawman revision is a better fit.

ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 11, b) Proposed edit -- Staff to revise the recommendation either according to the potential next step in the strawman revision of “unset the TAC” or retaining the term “clear” with a definition in a footnote.



c) Proposed edit



Discussion:

  • Worry about the timing of this step: 1) interaction with registry lock; 2) one-time use of the TAC – when is it used?  When it is received?

  • Would like some time to discuss within the Registry SG.

  • Thought the use was when the transfer was complete?

  • May need to add language to make that time period clearer.

  • If the registry lock is enacted when the TAC is received and if the decision is to not unlock it, would that then be a NACK?

ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 11, c) Proposed Edit -- Jim Galvin to bring this issue back to the Registry SG for discussion/consideration.

 

5. Service Level Agreement (SLA) for TAC Provision – Recommendation 12 (Public Comment Review Tooland Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

a) Concern



Discussion:

  • Staff to make sure this is consistent if we use the terminology anywhere else.



b) Concern



Discussion:

  • Any comments on shortening the time period or keeping it the same?  No comments so no changes needed to Recommendation 12.



6. TAC Time to Live (TTL) – Recommendation 13 (Public Comment Review Tooland Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com]) and question for community input (Public Comment Review Tool and Public Comment Working Document [docs.google.com])

a) Concern



Discussion:

  • WG agrees that no changes are necessary.



b) Concern



Discussion:

  • 14 days seems to be the right time period – it is already pretty short.

  • WG agrees that no changes are necessary.



c) Concern



Discussion:

  • This was discussed previously and WG did not come to any agreement on a minimum TTL.

  • 24 hours sounds nice, but doesn’t prevent 24 hours and 1 minute.  The 14 days is more secure.

  • WG agrees that no changes are necessary.



d) Proposed edit



Discussion:

  • If we use “standard” do we need to footnote it?

  • WG agrees that no changes are necessary, but consider a footnote and change to “Registry” as opposed to “Registries”.

ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 13, d) Proposed edit -- Staff to update the language to “Registry” from “Registries”.



e) Proposed edit:



Discussion:

  • WG agrees with the Strawman revision in the Potential next step, but notes that the number of hours is 336, not 366.

ACTION ITEM:  Recommendation 13, e) Proposed edit -- Staff to revise the language according to the Strawman revision suggested in the Potential next step.



f) Proposed edit:



Discussion:

  • WG agrees with the Strawman revision suggested in the Potential next step, except for the change to “reset the TAC to null”.

ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 13, f) Proposed edit -- Staff to revise the language according to the Strawman revision suggested in the Potential next step, except to change to “reset the TAC to null.”



Question for Public Comment

Question to the community: Who is best positioned to manage the standard 14-day TTL – the Registry or the Registrar, and why? Are there specific implications if the TTL is managed by the Losing Registrar?



Discussion:

  • RySG is still opposed.  Seems that this needs further discussion.

  • Could be managed both ways.

  • Wonder if a small group of Registries and Registrars could get together to consider whether to keep the language, add language, or not spell it out as to who enforces it.

ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 13, Question to the community -- Staff to call for volunteers to consider whether to 1) maintain the recommendation as is – that the registries enforces;  2) add language to the current recommendation; 3) change it to the Registrars to manage the TTL; or 4) not to specify who enforces it.  Volunteers during the meeting are: Jim Galvin, Rick Wilhelm (need to confirm), Jody Kolker, and John Woodworth.

 

  1. AOB