2023-09-19 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

Charter Question i1 (Full Portfolio Transfers AKA Bulk Transfers): WG members to review Options 1-4 and new Option 0 (from Sarah Wyld) in the document at Draft Options Document [docs.google.com] beginning on page 1 and indicate their preferences and why.

Voluntary Bulk Transfers/Partial Bulk Transfers (Charter Question i2)):

1. WG members to review the preliminary recommendations in the document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit?usp=sharing beginning on page 4 and provide comments.
2. WG members and RySG in particular to indicate which option(s) they favor in the document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit?usp=sharing on page 11.

Notes:

1. Welcome and Chair updates

• We've got today's meeting and next meeting to hopefully get through all of our ICANN-approved bulk transfer discussions and recommendations and the partial portfolio or partial sponsorship changes.
• We want to get all that wrapped up within the next two weeks so that we can move on to doing a recap of where we are holistically so we can move into our change of registrar discussions right after that.
• So again, it's important that we stick to this timeline so we can hit our goals here, so we can get on to that and finish those discussions, which we still have quite a bit to do.
• So a little bit of pressure.
• I'm not sure there's a big discrepancy within the group on these items.

2. Continue discussion of Charter Question i1 (Full Portfolio Transfers AKA Bulk Transfers) and Charter Question i2 (Change of Sponsorship AKA Partial Bulk Transfers:

i1) In light of these challenges described in section 3.1.7.2 of the Final Issue Report [gnso.icann.org], should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the TransferPolicy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances?

• Review Draft Options for Policy Language – see the Draft Options Document [docs.google.com] -- though WG members are welcome to suggest alternatives:
• Remove the reference to fees entirely
• Remove price ceiling (but allow for reasonable fee)
• Retain price ceiling + Include language for apportionment of fees
• Remove price ceiling + algorithm based on number of names transferred
• Other?

Discussion:

• Can we make this fee payable by the losing registrar?
• The losing registrar may not be in business. 
• Could be an arrangement between the losing registrar and the gaining registrar and not affecting the registry.
• Option 3 is really good – if there is a fee there is a maximum.
• Option 3 gets more complicated, but in any case this is a multi-month process.
• We’ve talked about getting to a more realistic number – is the process right and then we can adjust the numbers.
• RE: Option 3, we don’t know in advance how many TLDs will be involved.
• So another option (not in the doc) is to keep the language basically the same but change the $ amount, and make it "MAY" instead of "will" charge.
• ICANN should be making sure that every domain name can be transferred, so make the losing registrar pay.
• One suggestion to get enough registrars interested is if there isn’t a cost.  This is just a risk for the registries.
• Changing this from gaining to losing registrar turns this into a registry risk.  Need to still get clarified on losing or gaining.
• The suggestion above in bold is close to option 2. No change specifically to language except to “MAY” and change $ amount.
• Option 4: Need to decide if the numbers in brackets are what we want or something else. May be more future proof and more transparent, or do we go with the new option with minor adjustments to the current language?
• Option 4: Not sure how this would work in the real world.  Encourage the WG to run this option through some real-world scenarios. Also may allow us to consider the option of premium names.
• Question is whose numbers are we looking at?
• If we are close to a solution or two --- we could put a question if our report to the community.
• This would apply to both voluntary and involuntary RAA and RRA terminations.
• Staff re: comment about “reasonable fee” in option 2 – add a suggested number as an example of a reasonable fee.
• In the long run. Option 2 will move us ahead.
• It is in the registry’s best interest to work with the registrar on a reasonable fee.
• Original language is kind of a relic and not fit for purpose in today’s environment.
• RE: Option 4: should think about what really happens in the marketplace – keep in mind that registries generally seldom charge.
• Do any of these options make a dramatic change to the marketplace?
• No one has said why we need this fee/what is its purpose.
• Trending towards 1) option 2 with a cap; 2) option 4 with numbers.  WG members to look at these for next week’s discussion.

ACTION ITEM: Charter Question i1 (Full Portfolio Transfers AKA Bulk Transfers): WG members to review Options 1-4 and new Option 0 (from Sarah Wyld) in the document at Draft Options Document [docs.google.com] beginning on page 1 and indicate their preferences and why.

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?

Background:

• BTAPPA is currently a registry service that a registry can choose to offer, and they do that through filing they an RSEP with ICANN.
• BTAPPA occurs entirely between the registry and the registrar; ICANN has no involvement other than approving a registry to offer the service.

Questions for the WG to consider: Should proposed BTAPPA updates apply to: 

1. all registry operators (via an update to the Transfer Policy),

OR

2. all registry operators who offer the BTAPPA (via recommended updates to the BTAPPA) 

OR

3. Best practices

See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit?usp=sharing

Discussion:

• These probably be used more and more because it will be more difficult to do the things we do today because of the security mechanisms we are adopting.
• Registries are making it clear that the BTAPPA is an important flexible option.
• That said, seems like option 1 is the more fitting option, based on the discussions we’ve had.
• If we select option 1 will the registries have the option?  No, they will all have to do it and we’ll also have to figure out the fee.
• ALAC want a consistent policy that is equal for all – so likely support for option 1.  Then we need to decide if the policy sets the fee.
• The current draft recommendation requires registries to notify registrars of fees. In terms of putting specific fees in the policy, we generally recommend not putting fees in a policy since it’s difficult to change.
• Seems like the group is leaning towards option 1.
• Good to know what the registries are thinking as a stakeholder group.
• Registries are in favor of option 2, to keep it has an option – or option 1 with “MAY”.

ACTION ITEMS:

Voluntary Bulk Transfers/Partial Bulk Transfers (Charter Question i2)):

1. WG members to review the preliminary recommendations in the document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit?usp=sharing beginning on page 4 and provide comments.
2. WG members and RySG in particular to indicate which option(s) they favor in the document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit?usp=sharing on page 11.

3. AOB