Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Mike Rodenbaugh Alternates: n/a |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff will update the work plan to include time for a couple of sessions on the claw-back procedure. Staff to include a note that this issue will be revisited in the Additional Topics Working Document.
Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #36 Tuesday 15 February 2022 at 16:00 UTC
2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes)
3. Registrar-applied locks upon domain creation and domain transfer (15 minutes) -- Working document [docs.google.com] Post-Creation Locks:
Post-Transfer Locks:
ACTION ITEM: Staff will update the work plan to include time for a couple of sessions on the claw-back procedure. Staff to include a note that this issue will be revisited in the Additional Topics Working Document. 4. Begin discussion on NACKing (60 minutes) -- Working document [docs.google.com] NACK: A denial of a request for transfer by the Losing Registrar. (Note: this definition comes from paragraph 1.9 of theTransfer Dispute Resolution Policy.) Two Charter Questions (pages 3 and 4): h1) Are the current reasons for denying or NACK-ing a transfer sufficiently clear? Should additional reasons be considered? For instance, ICANN Contractual Compliance has observed difficulties from registrars tying transfer denials involving domain names suspended for abusive activities to the denial instances contemplated by the Transfer Policy; or should any reasons be removed? In considering this question, the WG may wish to consider:
Contractual Compliance has noted that many registrars and registrants remain confused by the terminology used in I.3.9.1, “Instances when the requested change of Registrar MAY NOT be denied include, but are not limited to: 3.9.1 Nonpayment for a pending or future registration period.” Does the Working Group have suggestions for clarifying this language, or does it believe it should remain as is? h2) Should additional guidance around cases subject to a UDRP decision be provided to ensure consistent treatment by all registrars? If so, is this something that should be considered by the RPMs PDP Working Group’s review of the UDRP, or should it be conducted within a Transfer Policy PDP?
General Discussion:
Discussion re: The reasons the Registrar of Record MAY deny a transfer request:
Discussion re: the reasons the Registrar of Record MUST deny a transfer request:
5. AOB (5 minutes)
|