2024-12-17 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Notes/ Action Items

 Action Items:

1. WG group to review responses in the public comment review tool. 
2. ICANN Org to draft revised language for Recommendations 34-36 regarding fee thresholds. Expand explanatory text and rationale for public comments in the final annex.
3. ICANN Org to consolidate finalized recommendations into the “green box” section. Green Box indicates what would be included in the final report.

Documents:

Public Comment Review Tool (PCRT)  [docs.google.com]

Agenda

1.Welcome and Chair Updates

2.Discussion of Additional Question 3 (other comments)

Key Comments received (which were not yet covered in WG discussion)

• To reduce from 60 days to 30 days, with an optional opt-out after 7 days Outcome:Recommendation 18 allows flexibility for lock removal if certain criteria is met.
• Implementation timelines: Requests for alignment with the Registration Data Policy (effective August 2025). Suggested timelines include a 12-18 month implementation period post-policy announcement. Outcome: this would be a decision of the IRT, and would not likely interfere with implementation of the Reg Data policy.

3.Discussion of Recommendations needing additional discussion flagged by WG and/or Leadership

Key discussion points: 

• Recommendation 9: Addition of sections 9.4 and 9.5 to account for rare cases where registries may need to null a TAC without the registrant’s approval. Outcome: Language deemed acceptable; minimal expected execution of these scenarios.
• Recommendation 17: Clarification added in 17.5 does not prevent registrars from sending a transfer approval mechanism to the RNH, but rather stipulates that this mechanism must not be included within the transfer confirmation. Outcome: Updated language approved.
• Recommendation 18: Floor open to see if the group had updates on 18.3 “reasonable basis”. Recommendation 18 emphasizes flexibility in opt-out mechanisms for transfer locks without the need to wait seven days per commenter. Outcome: Updates supported.
• Recommendation 21: Registrar denial of transfer requests due to evidence of fraud or DNS abuse clarified. Registrars MAY provide specific evidence/rationale upon request. Outcome:Updated language approved.
• Recommendation 26: 26.2 is regarding the change of registrant data, and the working group is recommending removing Section 2b “Availability of change of registrant” from the future policy. However, the working group recommends retaining the following statement from Section 2 b, 1. “In general, registrants must be permitted to update their registration data”. Outcome: Approved updated language.
• Recommendation 27: Implementation guidance added for notification consolidation. A link may be used for cases involving large volumes of domains. Outcome: Language accepted.
• Recommendation 33: Debate over expanding TDRP to registrants. The WG Chair pointed out that the decision is with the GNSO Council. Outcome: Suggestion to highlight need for a separate process for registrants rather than expanding TDRP. WG agreed that this should be further discussed at the GNSO Council.
• Recommendation 34: Revised fee structure: Fees applicable only for registry families exceeding 50,000 domains. Outcome: The WG Chair suggested updating related Recs (language) to account for the agreed threshold. Action Item: Staff to draft updated language for final approval.
• Recommendations 41 and 42: Simplification of language regarding agents, resellers, and service providers to avoid ambiguity. Requirement for registrars to document and retain notification records for compliance reviews. 
  
  

4.AOB

• Staff has been going through the Public Comment Review Tool and providing summaries of the working groups responses to each comment to ensure proper documentation.