Page History

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: None captured.

Notes:

1. Welcome and Chair updates

• Thanks to the group for the review of the TEAC and TDRP documents. We received one suggested change from Sarah that we can discuss as a group.
• This morning, Berry notified the WG that the monthly project package has been submitted the Council, and we are currently "on target" and 57% of the way through our work.
• Per the agenda, we are dedicating today's call to the first charter question under ICANN-approved transfers - Charter Question i1, which references the required fee for bulk transfers. Staff will provide some requested numbers on the bulk transfers, and then we will dive into some targeted questions, based on some of the group's initial feedback from last week.
• Project Plan: Where we are today (see above); map out subsequent meeting based on today’s discussion.  Will come back to the topic of change of registrants.

Question from Sarah Wyld:

Re: Draft Preliminary Recommendation: Once a Gaining Registrar has provided an initial non-automated response to a TEAC communication as described in Section I.A.4.6.3 of the Transfer Policy, the Gaining Registrar must provide additional, substantive updates by email to the Losing Registrar every 72 hours / 3 calendar days until work to resolve the issue is complete. These updates must include specific actions taken by the Gaining Registrar to work towards resolution.

Question: Was our intent specifically to have these updates happen only every 72 hours/3 days, or was that the maximum time that could pass before an update is given? Are we intending to restrict against more prompt/frequent updates (e.g. after two days)? I do think that would be an effect of this current text.  If we’re saying that 72 hours/3 days is the maximum time that can pass between updates which could also be more frequent, we could just add in “at least” (“updates by email to the Losing Registrar at least every 72 hours / 3 calendar days”)

Discussion:

• Sarah: What if there is a useful update prior to 72 hours?  We don’t what to restrict this.
• Roger: I think this is a good catch. I think we were trying to say within 3 days.  If any comments respond to Sarah’s email on the list.

Update from Steinar: For info: At-Large has discussed the draft recommendation for Phase 2 charter question G3 and will submit a request to make it possible for a Registrant to initiate a TDRP. The wording will be completed at the CPWG meeting on July 12, 2023.

2. Discussion of Charter Question i1 ICANN-Approved Transfer (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 Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances?

a. Overview of numbers related to ICANN-approved Bulk Transfers from 2018 – 2022 – see attached slides, #15

• There were 9 ICANN-Approved Bulk Transfers involving 50K or more names
• Of the 9 approved transfers involving 50K or more names, 2 were involuntary, and ICANN org sent out an application for the names 
• 141 ICANN-approved transfers resulting from voluntary/involuntary terminations or voluntary assignments

b. Questions for consideration based on initial reactions from Working Group

• • The $50,000 fee is a requirement from BTAPPAs that existed in a pre-New gTLD world? Accordingly, what fee considerations (if any) should be made now that bulk transfers could involve multiple TLDs? 
  • Are there instances where the $50,000 fee(s) should be waived? (Examples could include involuntary bulk transfer arising from involuntary bulk transfer resulting from RAA terminations).
  • Should tiered fees depending on volume be considered in ICANN-approved bulk transfers?
  • Should additional carve-outs be considered for involuntary transfers - for example - premium names? 

Discussion:

• Jothan: The data on involuntary would be helpful to get data all the way back to the beginning - it is infrequent but quite the harrowing experience for all parties involved.  As the registrars mentioned in their comments they really take on a lot of headaches.  So, should there be a fee for the gainers since they really are providing a service.
• Roger: Maybe for the voluntary ones its more of a business decision.
• Volker: We volunteered to take on a registrar known for abuse but stalled when we didn’t pay the transfer fees.  Wise to propose that in the case of involuntary bulk transfers the gaining registrar should be exempt from the fees.
• Roger: Think also about the path for voluntary bulk transfers.
• Jody: We took over a large registrar that went offline and it was a great deal of effort.  This is not a money-making situation.  A lot of registrants will transfer from the registrar taking them over.
• Theo: Most registrars don’t want the bulk transfers from problematic registrars.
• Volker: The voluntary bulk transfers need help too.
• Steinar: Where did the $50K come from?
• Roger: It does get complicated.  There is some cost associated with it. Is there a way to do this on a cost basis?
• Jothan: This 50k was, I think, arbitrarily set at a time when the landscape was really fundamentally different.  I seem to recall it was set as an amount that would cause an appropriate level of friction to dissuade over-use.
• Roger: Not a total fee – per 50K or more.  Each backend provider would get the $50K fee.
• Jothan: Can we drill down to the scenarios where it is voluntary? Do we want to look at whether the registration term is affected?
• Roger: Should we remove the idea of fees from the policy and let the registries and registrars to work it out, or is it helpful to leave it there?
• Catherine: Should we look at the definition of ICANN-Approved Transfers in the Policy? This is limited.
• Jothan: The early version of this was an ad-hoc process.  Helpful if we could prescribe that the gaining registrar can handle all of the bulk transfers.
• Catherine: Think the above is handled by the policy – except in the case of acquisitions.
• Caitlin: Catherine is correct that a gaining registrar applicant will be asked to confirm they are accredited in all relevant TLDs.
• Roger: Seems like there’s support for removing the fee on involuntary transfers – but also could be multiple paths.  Can we get more details on that voluntary bucket.
• Caitlin: In some recent years there has been consolidation of registrars that resulted in bulk transfers.  Also this section of the policy could be worded better, particularly with respect to subject/verb agreement.
• Catherine: Does this policy and the registry services BTAPPAs overlap?
• Roger: This applies to charter question #2.
• Jothan: Should vertically integrated registries be excluded from the process -- so should vertical integration be a factor in the scenario of multiple-party involuntary transfer scenarios.
• Roger: If someone voluntarily stops supporting a TLD should any or all of the fees be waived or do we not talk about fees at all? There is a cost – how should it be accounted.  Hearing that $50K fee should be applied for an involuntary transfer.
• Volker: Number 50K always seemed arbitrary – free to 49K but then $50K for 50K domain names.  Also would like to see where this fee is coming from and have tiered fees.
• Jim: On the question of involuntary transfers: seems likely we could get support from the registries to waive the fees.  On the voluntary side I think we need to consider what problem we are trying to solve.  Need to discuss this more. Need to understand what was behind the charter question.
• Jothan: One reason to look at this closely: As it is today a lot of the automated bulk will change post our changes to the policy especially re: via the access to Auth codes.
• Volker: What problem are we solving with the Transfer Policy?  If we can’t answer that, then the fee should go.
• Roger: When you look at what the Policy is trying to achieve is cost recovery because there is cost to moving these.
• Caitlin: “In preparing this report, ICANN org Policy staff consulted with other departments within ICANN org. Colleagues from Global Domains and Strategy (GDS), who manage the De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure, have noted that the requirements in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy have
• caused challenges in certain instances of de-accreditation. Specifically, the requirement for a gaining registrar to pay a one-time flat fee of $50,000 can make it difficult to secure a gaining registrar. By way of example, when the pool of potential gaining registrars perceive the value of a domain portfolio to be minimal, where the terminating registrar’s domains are known or suspected to have a significant portion of abusive registrations, data escrow issues (the data in escrow is outdated or incomplete),
• Jothan Frakes, RrSG Alt to Everyone (1:05 PM)
• hopefully I was clear - I think there's a significant amount of inter-registrar "bulk" transfers that happen which work because they can flow through EPP via some level of automation... but  once we'd alter the TAC "stuff" those would be affected and perhaps need voluntary bulk solutions
• Caitlin Tubergen – From Final Issues Report:  “In preparing this report, ICANN org Policy staff consulted with other departments within ICANN org. Colleagues from Global Domains and Strategy (GDS), who manage the De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure, have noted that the requirements in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy have caused challenges in certain instances of de-accreditation. Specifically, the requirement for a gaining registrar to pay a one-time flat fee of $50,000 can make it difficult to secure a gaining registrar. By way of example, when the pool of potential gaining registrars perceive the value of a domain portfolio to be minimal, where the terminating registrar’s domains are known or suspected to have a significant portion of abusive registrations, data escrow issues (the data in escrow is outdated or incomplete)” and “expectations of renewal rates are low (in the case of aggressive promotions), the requirement for a gaining registrar to pay a one-time flat fee of $50,000 USD to the registry operator makes it difficult to secure a gaining registrar to accept the domains. This, in turn, poses a risk to the registrants who have utilized the services of the terminating registrar. Furthermore, ICANN has limited ability to determine the quality of the domains or make representations to potential gaining registrars as to the value of the domains.”
• Jothan: I would not want vertically integrated registrars to not be able to offer to take involuntary transfers, but then would encourage that it would be the entirety of the registrants.
• Jothan: Can this be a multiple TLD type of fee?

Poll questions: (approximate with raised hands)

1. If there is an involuntary termination resulting in a bulk transfer, should the required $50,000 fee be waived (no fee in the policy)? (yes: 2 no: 7)
2. Should there be a tiered approach to the fee? (6 yes / want to consider)
3. Leave fee as is? (0 yes)

3. AOB