2024-11-05 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call
The call for the Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group will take place on Tuesday, 05 November 2024 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/3m2cb3hp
PROPOSED AGENDA
Welcome and Chair Updates
Continue Discussion of Recs 25-28 using Public Comment Review Tool [docs.google.com]
Review Draft Revisions to Recs 3, 12-24, using Public Comment Review Tool [docs.google.com]
AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
PARTICIPATION
Apologies: Zak Muscovitch (BC), Owen Smigelski (RrSG), John Woodworth (ISPCP), Jim Galvin (RySG)
Alternates: Arinola Akinyemi (BC), Essie Musailov (RrSG)
Notes/ Action Items
Documents:
Link to Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT):https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lyX27uECA5bNKRw-UOIH2bAaTRvec1YkX1EKjtHCsAQ/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Link to Rec Drafting Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YODFe-aZOi1AQ3c8f2-y8MXtcUU4PjzsByFzk-dpAD4/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Action Item: Assignment 5 – Rec #34 – 47 (Group 2 ICANN-approved transfers + BTAPPA) - Deadline: 11/25/2024
Welcome and Chair Updates
2. Discussion of Recommendations 25-28
o Comments included concerns about the removal of the Designated Agent definition.
o Removing 26.2 was considered high impact by commenters.
o A public comment was made about including a 30-day lock instead of removal of lock for “material changes” to protect domain ownership integrity.
o Concerns were raised from commenters about the removal of confirmation from both prior and new registrant prior to processing the CORD.
o The group discussed that updating data should not automatically trigger a transfer lock andnoted that changes to registrant data do not always imply a change of ownership.
o Further clarification was discussed regarding acceptable channels for notifications (e.g., email, SMS) and that registrars should use the most secure, preferred communication method for notifications.
o The working group discussed whether the word “immediately” should be included in Rec 27 instead of the “without undue delay”. WG members were not in favour of this proposal.
o Another suggestion included an addition of a time period within which the registrant must take action (27.2). WG Members agreed that adding specific response times could introduce liability and may not resolve the underlying concerns about delayed registrant awareness
o WG member suggested the time period of action should be considered as a separate thing and be taken out of 27.2.
o Comments to 27.3 included to send notifiations to all contact available and to document and make available all notifications to ICANN compliance when requested. Some WG members considered this as sensible addition and some added to make keep flexibility in the channels notifications are sent.
o Comments to 27.4 included to change “may” to “must” send the CORD notification to the RNHs new email address. However, WG members suggested to keep the “may”.
3. Draft Revisions to Recommendations 3, 12-24
4. Any Other Business (AOB)