2025-01-28 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call
The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group call will take place on Tuesday, 28 January 2025 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/mr23vnn5
PROPOSED AGENDA
Welcome and Chair Updates
Final Report updates (TBD)
Consensus Call check-in
AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items: Consensus Call and Final Report
WG Members are kindly asked to provide final edits deadline: Friday, January 31, 2025.
What can still be changed?
Grammar, formatting, and minor clarifications.
No substantive edits to recommendations.
Final Report Submission: Next week to the GNSO Council.
Link to TPR Final Report Review Tables:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Eoei5W6VShD-JbbD9SS2ZyZe8cT-mROpjGwxAQ3OP0/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Welcome and Chair Updates
WG Chair thanked the working group members for their dedication over the years in reviewing and refining the Transfer Policy.
Consensus Call Review:
WG Chair reminded the group that a consensus call was sent out last week.
The consensus call remains open through Friday and will close at the end of the day Friday.
The final report will be submitted to the GNSO Council next week.
Final Report updates (TBD)
ICANN Org confirmed that previously reviewed updates had been highlighted in the last meeting.
No objections were raised regarding prior updates.
The meeting proceeded with reviewing RySG comments and document cleanup items suggested by Rick Wilhelm.
2.1. Specific Change Proposals
Line 284 – Clarification of "Post Creation Lock" Period
Proposal: Replace “a 60-day post creation lock (or period other than 30 days)” with “such a period.”
Reasoning:
60-day post-creation locks vary among registries (e.g., 45-day, 75-day).
The existing phrase is redundant.
Outcome: Accepted.
Line 552 – Clarification on Setting TAC to Null
Proposal: Reference RFC 9154, Sections 4.4 and 5.2 for clarity.
Reasoning:
The term "resetting the tag to null" is overly technical.
The RFC contains clearer, standardized definitions.
Outcome: Accepted.
Line 747 – Reference to ICANN Data Retention Requirements
Proposal: Replace “must provide such records to ICANN upon reasonable notice” with “is responsible for its own compliance requirements contained therein, as they may change from time to time.”
Reasoning:
Specific data retention rules may change in the future.
Aims to ensure policy flexibility.
Outcome: Accepted.
Lines 936–939 – Redundancy Between Sections 18.1 and 18.2
Proposal: Remove Section 18.2 as it is redundant.
Discussion:
18.1: Requires registrars to demonstrate receipt of a request.
18.2: States that requests must come from the registered name holder.
It was discussed that 18.1 already implies 18.2.
WG members raised concerns about ensuring requests are specific and not bulk portfolio-wide.
ICANN Org suggested adding further language in 18.1 stating that the request must be domain-specific.
Outcome:
18.2 was removed.
Add footnote to 18.1 to mention domain-specific requests from the registered name holder.
Line 968 – Standardizing 720h (30-day) Transfer Restrictions
Proposal: Align Rec. 18 with Rec. 3 by explicitly stating that all transfer restrictions must be standardized at 720 hours (30 days).
Reasoning:
Rec. 3 (Initial Registration Locks) already mandates a standard 30-day period.
Rec. 18 should mirror Rec. 3 to avoid inconsistencies.
Outcome: Accepted.
Other Grammatical and Formatting Adjustments
Several minor grammatical improvements were noted.
Outcome: ICANN Org to implement editorial corrections.
Consensus Call check-in
Final edits deadline: Friday, January 31, 2025.
What can still be changed?
Grammar, formatting, and minor clarifications.
No substantive edits to recommendations.
Final Report Submission: Next week to the ICANN Council.
AOB
WG Chair thanked all members and ICANN staff for their hard work and dedication