Page History
...
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Catherine Merdinger (RrSG), Daniel Khauka Nanghaka (At-Large) Alternates: Jothan Frakes (RrSG), Raymond Mamattah (At-Large) |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items: None captured.
Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #39 Tuesday 22 March 2022 at 1600 UTC
2. Welcome & Chair updates (5 minutes)
a. Update from Steinar Grøtterød, ALAC: Distributed results of discussion in the CPWG on locks. Based on that discussion we had a poll. There were around 40 responses. The results showed support for a 60-day period for locks as well as 30 days. [CLARIFICATION FROM STEINAR: The sentence “The results showed support for a 60-day period for locks as well as 30 days” is not correct. More accurate is that the “majority of the CPWG members were in favor of reducing the lock period for post-create and post transfer locks”. The poll results – as distributed to the GNSO-TPR mailing list, show that the 60 days alternative had 7% of the votes, while the 10 days and 30 days lock were favored] Positive response to keeping the same policy for all locks. This input should be taken as informal. Questions/Comments:
b. Update From ICANN Org Compliance re: “3.9.3 Domain name in Registrar Lock Status, unless the Registered Name Holder is provided with the reasonable opportunity and ability to unlock the domain name prior to the Transfer Request.”
3. Begin discussion on bulk use cases (60 minutes) Related charter question: “b5) Should the ability for registrants to request AuthInfo Codes in bulk be streamlined and codified? If so, should additional security measures be considered?” See AuthInfo Codes Working Document [docs.google.com], page 9.
4. AOB (5 minutes)
|
...