Page History
...
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/2f3zddzs
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) 3. High-level Review of Phase 1A Charter Topics & Charter Questions (30 minutes) 4. Phase 1A Charter Topic #01 Discussion – Gaining FOA (30 minutes) 5. Phase 1A Charter Topic #02 Discussion – Losing FOA (15 minutes and time permitting) 6. Next steps & closing (5 minutes) BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS TRP_P1 - Approach to Initial Review of Charter Questions - 18 May 2021 .pdf |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Mike Rodenbaugh (IPC), Crystal Ondo (RrSG) |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items
Meeting Notes
2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes)
3. High-level Review of Phase 1A Charter Topics & Charter Questions (30 minutes)
4. Phase 1A Charter Topic #01 Discussion – Gaining FOA (30 minutes)
5. Phase 1A Charter Topic #02 Discussion – Losing FOA (15 minutes and time permitting)– - Tech Ops process is a helpful starting point for this work, so the amount of work to make this decision is lower. Would scope this as low. - Keeping the Losing FOA makes sense, but there may be changes to the Losing FOA - Suggest review of available data for this question and the gaining FOA question - If there is no source of compliance data, take it at face value and move forward. - Are there any concerns about the registrant not able to get the auth-code from the registrar? The group should look into this - If we keep locks, we should document why. - For the level of effort associated with locking – this could be a large issue – it may be a medium effort. - If the lock were to go away, a name could be hijacked multiple times in a matter of days. - Is 60 days the correct number? - Is it possible to have a trusted mechanism in terms of a registrant actually initiating this request? - There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of the locking issue. It may be interesting to see some data from ccTLDs regarding this. If this is a permissive regime, there should be some consideration if it is affirmatively required to registrants. This is a medium issue. - There are multiple locks – for example, a 60-day lock after change of registrant that the registrant can opt out of Auth Codes - The Tech Ops paper has a lot of feedback on this issue - This topic is tough – should there be an automatic ACK? This is really the hardest question to answer regarding the original transfer process. It is a large issue. - There are many registrants who do not understand what an auth-code is and how to use it. It’s difficult to get the auth-code. May need to consider processes that enable the registrant to get the auth-code more easily. - Is it worth discussing these issues prior to FOA discussions? - There are two important parts of an auth-code – identifying a registrant and on the backend in the case of the incumbent registrar, there were some discussions about the role of the registry in auth-code management. This issue deserves a fair amount of discussion. If the auth code is properly managed, this could establish a proper paper trail. This is a high-touch topic. - The WG seems open to discussing the auth-info code prior to deliberating on the FOAs. 6. Next steps & closing (5 minutes) – - WG members should have received 3 invites. The tentative meeting time is Tuesdays at 16:00 UTC. - The 1 June meeting will be 60 minutes so as not to interfere with the GNSO Policy webinar. There will be also be a break the week after ICANN71. - We will review this time in the coming weeks to make sure it still works for everyone. |