Page History
...
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/evcrfprp
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
3. Rationale for elimination of the Gaining FOA (15 minutes)
4. Revisit TAC recommendations (60 minutes)
5. AOB (5 minutes)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Steinar Grøtterød (At-Large) Alternates: Lutz Donnerhacke (At-Large) |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items Revisit TAC recommendations (60 minutes) – see: TAC Working Document [docs.google.com] (beginning on p. 15) Recommendation 1: Revise text to (new text in brackets): “The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Policy and all related policies use the term “Transfer Authorization Code (TAC)” in place of the currently-used term “AuthInfo Code”[ and related terms].” Recommendation 2: Revise the wording (new text in brackets) to ““A Transfer Authorization Code (TAC) is a token created by the Registrar of Record and provided upon request to the registrant or [their designated representative.] Change “registrant” to “Registered Name Holder” throughout. Recommendation 3: WG members to suggest alternate/revised language. Recommendation 4: Change “created” to “stored”. Recommendation 5: WG to review revised text as suggested: “The Working Group recommends that the Registry notify the Registrar of Record after the Gaining Registrar has made [3-5] failed attempts to present a valid TAC to the Registry for a domain name, and for each successive failed attempt as long as a TAC is present. The Registrar of Record must notify the registrant that the failed attempts have taken place, and may take additional action, for example resetting the TAC.” Recommendations 6-11: WG to review and comment.
Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #27 Tuesday 07 December 2021 at 16:00 UTC
2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes)
3. Rationale for elimination of the Gaining FOA (15 minutes) – see: Gaining FOA Working Document [docs.google.com](beginning on p. 16)
Discussion:
4. Revisit TAC recommendations (60 minutes) – see: TAC Working Document [docs.google.com](beginning on p. 15)
Charter Question b1) Is AuthInfo Code still a secure method for inter-registrar transfers? What evidence was used by the Working Group to make this determination? Recommendations 1-5: Recommendation 1:
ACTION ITEM: Revise text to (new text in brackets): “The Working Group recommends that the Transfer Policy and all related policies use the term “Transfer Authorization Code (TAC)” in place of the currently-used term “AuthInfo Code”[ and related terms].” Recommendation 2:
ACTION ITEM: Revise the wording (new text in brackets) to ““A Transfer Authorization Code (TAC) is a token created by the Registrar of Record and provided upon request to the registrant or [their designated representative.] Change “registrant” to “Registered Name Holder” throughout. Recommendation 3:
ACTION ITEM: WG members to suggest alternate/revised language. Recommendation 4:
ACTION ITEM: Change “created” to “stored”. Recommendation 5:
ACTION ITEM: WG to review revised text as suggested: “The Working Group recommends that the Registry notify the Registrar of Record after the Gaining Registrar has made [3-5] failed attempts to present a valid TAC to the Registry for a domain name, and for each successive failed attempt as long as a TAC is present. The Registrar of Record must notify the registrant that the failed attempts have taken place, and may take additional action, for example resetting the TAC.” 5. AOB (5 minutes)
|