Page History

Notes/ Action Items

 Main discussion and action items

1. Welcome and Chair Updates
2. Review WG inputs to CORD Requirements for Initial Report worksheet [docs.google.com]
   • BC raised some concerns regarding Rec 2.3 and 2.4. Could lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
   • Some comments include the lack of rationale.
   • Cannot Live with comments focus on Rec 2.3, 2.4, 3, 3.4 and 4.
   • How can WG explain that the aim is not to reduce security levels with some changes but to be adaptive for many business models?
   • Suggestion: Members could put questions to WG via webinar regarding Recs?
   • Group 1)a) organised a previous webinar focus on awareness raising rather than answering questions.
   • Rec 2.4: The working group recommends eliminating from the future Change of Registrant Data Policy the requirement that the Registrar impose a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock following a Change of Registrant.
   • WG suggested to remove 60 day lock for change of registrant, BC believes 30 day lock should be by default. 
   • WG discussed the rationale of 30 days? Why that number why not other?
   • Some members suggested that current Rec 2.4 might cause compliance issues.
   • Others indicated that no amount of lock will provide more security.
   • BC doesn’t support opt-out of notification reg Rec. 3 due to security concerns.
   • BC suggests that for Rec 3.4 that notificiation should occure before change of registrant.
   • Can live with, but with changes focus on Rec: 3, 3.4, 4 and 17.
   • Members informed the WG that registrants have indicated to leave because they receive too many notification.
   • Members point out the importance of notifications due to security.
   • Initial comments results show the following input to the Recs:

CANNOT LIVE WITH

BC

• (2.3) Keep confirmation to prior/new before change
• (2.4) Reduce lock to 30 days, keep opt out
• (3, 3.4, 4) No opt out of notifications, notifications before not after

CAN LIVE WITH (with change)

At-Large

• (3, 4) No opt out of notifications
• (17) Established Relationship concern

RySG

• (17) require record-keeping for removing lock early

RrSG

• (17) torn - some satisfied with ER test, others would remove ER restrictions
• (4.4) Q - clarify record maintenance

BC

• (1.3) remove second part or require disclosure

GRAMMATICAL EDITS

RySG (Jim)

• (3) add ref to Rec 2
• (4.6) update for consistency

RrSG 

• (3, 3.4, 4.2, 17) clarity + grammar

SUPPORT REC AS IS

At-Large

• 1,2,3

RySG

• 1,2,3,4

RrSG

• 1,2

BC

• 1, 1.1, 1.2 (not 1.3)
• 2.1, 2.3 (not 2, 2.2, 2.4)
• 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 (not 3, 3.4)

3.Continue discussion of updated Group 1(a) Rec 17 (Established Relationships)

• • At-Larg and RySG have concerns reg Rec 17.
  • AT-large considers the “Established Relationship” is confusing and difficult to understand. Reconsider wording?
  • RySG would like to see changes regarding the record keeping.
  • WG members suggested to discuss in more depth during the next call.

4.AOB 

• • Not discussed