Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome and Chair updates
2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call    
3. Additional Use Cases Charter Question g3 (draft scenarios)

• Use Cases from IRTP D Final Report [gnso.icann.org], please see pp. 41-42

• Two registrant claimants dispute to be the Registered Name Holder immediately prior to or directly following an inter-registrar transfer (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role)
• Two registrant claimants dispute who is the Registered Name Holder of a domain name without an inter-registrant transfer having taken place. There are a number of reasons for such a situation to occur, including – but not limited to – a contractor registering a domain for a client, two business partners splitting, admin contact leave a company but remains listed in the Whois database. (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role)
• Any other use cases from the WG that need to be considered?

      4. Charter Question g4

• WG discussion re: homework

      5. Charter Question g5

• WG discussion re: homework

      6. Planning for ICANN77

      7. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Notes/ Action Items

 ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

1.  WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkmM9w/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and note anything that might be missing or require clarification. Also review the table on slide 7 of the attached slides.
2. Staff to create a Google doc of the questions for interested WG members to add their names by Thursday, 08 June to volunteer to speak to the question. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KX9kw7Sd1xz8BoOnUh1TvYRVtwKSNrOIMyQSlFaK944/edit?usp=sharing. Staff to provide talking points.

Notes: 

1. Welcome and Chair Updates

• No updates provided.

2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call

• The group agreed to Staff's summary of charter questions g1 and g2, and a draft of the responses was subsequently sent to the group for its review.
• Homework for this call:
• We asked the group to review the use cases identified from IRTP-D for a registrant transfer dispute resolution policy and see if those captured the gap they believe exists;
• We presented an overview of the data that is transferred b/w parties/provider/panel for the TDRP and asked the group to provide any concerns or red flags with respect to data minimization.

3. Additional Use Cases Charter Question g3 (draft scenarios) – See attached slides.

• Use Cases from IRTP D Final Report [gnso.icann.org], please see pp. 41-42

• Two registrant claimants dispute to be the Registered Name Holder immediately prior to or directly following an inter-registrar transfer (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role)
• Two registrant claimants dispute who is the Registered Name Holder of a domain name without an inter-registrant transfer having taken place. There are a number of reasons for such a situation to occur, including – but not limited to – a contractor registering a domain for a client, two business partners splitting, admin contact leave a company but remains listed in the Whois database. (entirely b/w registrants; no compliance role)
• Any other use cases from the WG that need to be considered?

Discussion:

• Goal for the use cases to be stepping stone – are there other use cases?
• If there is support for this, consider whether to include text to notify the Council of a potential gap.
• Use cases considered by ITRP-D still seem relevant today.

4. Charter Question g4 -- See attached slides 6, 7, and 8.

g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law?

5. Charter Question g5 -- See attached slides.

g5)  Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization?

Discussion:

• Are the data required all of the time (i.e., postal address) – what data sharing can we eliminate?
• Is everything on slide 7 needed?
• Data minimization is the law in some cases – remove the items marked with asterisk.
• We have draft updated text related to Rec 27 updates, that covers some of these items – this question is whether there are data protection issues even after the changes from Rec 27.
• Note the item from last week’s meeting: ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkmM9w/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and note anything that might be missing or require clarification.  Also review the table on slide 7 of the attached slides.

6. Planning for ICANN77

Volunteers to facilitate charter question discussions:

Note that the charter questions and draft responses have been circulated:

• TEAC Charter Question Responses [docs.google.com]
• TDRP Charter Question Responses [docs.google.com]

Staff can provide talking points for any of the volunteers.

Also at ICANN77 staff will seek volunteers to participate in a role-playing exercise on a registrant initiated transfer dispute mechanism.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to create a Google doc of the questions for interested WG members to add their names by Thursday, 08 June to volunteer to speak to the question. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KX9kw7Sd1xz8BoOnUh1TvYRVtwKSNrOIMyQSlFaK944/edit?usp=sharing. Staff to provide talking points.