2024-07-23 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Notes/ Action Items

AI: WG to review updated Initial Report (to be shared on list by support staff) and identify any final textual edits before the next WG call on 30 July 16:00 UTC:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_GEgTyVzH2Qley6Ps775TErd-ogswmoj7coZFLMebw/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com] 

1. Welcome and Chair Updates
   1. The Chair noted this will be the WG’s last substantive meeting before Public Comment.
      
      
      
2. Review Initial Report – Group 2 Homework [docs.google.com]
   1. Lines 4201-4208 (RrSG): Remove reference to 60 day post-COR lock, and update 60 days to 30 days, to make them consistent with what the WG recommended in Groups 1 (a) and (b).
   2. Lines 4282-4291 (RrSG): Remove reference to Gaining FOA, as WG recommended removing in Group 1(a)
      1. Note: The edited TDRP is only a guide to what the updated policy could look like, to help the IRT - it is not official policy language
   3. Various spots, 469 (RySG): Throughout the document, sometimes “registrar” (singular) or “registrars” (plural) is used. There will need to be a readthrough of the document to make sure it is consistently singular, where applicable.
      1. A WG member noted there are 3 contexts for plural use: (1) All of the registrars, (2) the two (gaining registrar) involved in the transfer, and (3) registrars (meaning current sponsoring registrar or the future one)
   4. Line 1285, Rec 29 (RySG): Change “Initiating” to “Responding”, as the text has more to do with responding (Rec 30 covers Initiation timing)
   5. Line 1301: Rec 29 (RySG): Rationale copy paste error. 
      1. Staff has proposed text, some WG representatives believed the timeframe is not tenable due to timezone conflicts and time needed to respond. Suggested matching TEAC timeframe with the similar  24 hour timeframe in the RAA re: abuse complaints. 
   6. Line 1323 Rec 30 (RySG): In the Over 30 Days scenario, is the Gaining Registrar allowed to reject the Losing Registrar’s emergency situation justification? Do we want to extend the flowchart to handle that case, or do we say you have to accept it? We don’t want a hole in our process.
      1. If the Gaining Registrar rejects then they have to investigate and still respond. This is a gap but we don’t have to fix that gap here.
      2. TEAC is just a means of communication that has response requirements. There is no requirement they return the domain. Whether they find it meritless or not, they just need to respond.
      3. If you disagree with the Gaining Registrar you might have to go to Contractual Compliance. Maybe IRT can address it, but we do not need to here.
      4. WG member provided an example of a failed TEAC, and noted the policy can do more.
      5. Chair proposed leaving this recommendation as is.
   7. Line 1350 Rec 31 (RySG): Text implies progress is going to be headed in favor of the Losing Registrar and communication is only going one way (from Gaining Rr). What if it is in the other direction? It feels incomplete.
      1. The Chair suggested that “toward resolution” is completion.
      2. A resolution might be disputed, but there will be resolution, not always in Losing Registrar’s favor
      3. Leave text as is
   8. Line 1386 Rec 32 (RySG): Contains Rec 29’s 24-hour limit. Suggest deleting text so it doesn't contain dependency and does not have to track in multiple locations. 
      1. Agreed to remove “24-hours” and just reference Rec 29
   9. Line 1452 Rec 34 (RySG): Insert “Voluntary” in title for clarity
      1. No objections, text to be updated
   10. Line 1575 Rec 38 (RySG): Does it need to mention Rec 35 for clarity?
       1. Staff-proposed text approved to add in
   11. Line 3288 (RySG):Suggest adding text “limit for the registrant and prior sponsoring registrar” to distinguish timeframe for clarity.
       1. Agreed to add text
   12. Line 3176 (RySG): Add additional rationale: “after discussing the reporter low volumes of occurrence, the working group concluded”, as the low volume didn’t make it worth our while
       1. Agreed to add text
   13. Grammatical Edits (RrSG, RySG): staff will go through and implement
       
       
       
3. AOB
   1. Staff noted that the WG has now gone through all the parts of the Initial Report. 
      1. The WG will have one more week to review the updated Initial Report to make sure text reads clearly, and identify any other preferred grammatical or textual edits. 
   2. Next WG meeting is 30 July, which does not give a lot of time for substantive changes
      1. If your group does identify substantive issues, save them for public comments
   3. Staff plans to send out the Initial Report, updated with WG revisions by the end of today. 
      1. Staff will remove existing highlights and only highlight the most recent changes. We will have another google doc where WG can note any final changes. 

AI: WG to review updated Initial Report (to be shared on list by support staff) and identify any final textual edits before the next WG call on 30 July 16:00 UTC:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_GEgTyVzH2Qley6Ps775TErd-ogswmoj7coZFLMebw/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]

d. The Chair thanked the WG for its hard work

1. 1. 1. There is one more week to read through the Initial Report, then it will be published for Public Comment.