AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
Date: Wednesday, 13 April 2022
Time: 20:00 - 21:30 UTC (for the time in various time zones click here)
...
How can I participate in this meeting?
Please note - change in connection details: for all languages, dial into the Adigo line, press 1638 and the Adigo operator will ask you which language channel you prefer and transfer you to the appropriate language channel.
English Conference ID = 1638
Spanish Conference ID = 1638
French Conference ID = 1638
Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09
Passcode: #CPWG2345*
RTT Link: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN
...
Action Items: EN
Recording: EN, ES, FR
Zoom Recording: EN
Zoom Chat: EN
Transcript: EN, ES, FR
...
Dial out Participants:
EN: Olivier Crépin-Leblond,
ES:
FR:
Apologies:
Observer:
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Claudia Ruiz,
ES Interpreters:
FR Interpreters:
Call Management: TBD
...
AGENDA *****TO BE UPDATED*****
Click tabs for languages - Haga clic en pestañas para idiomas - Cliquez sur les onglets pour les langues
English (EN)
1. Welcome and Introduction to the Meeting - Staff (2 minutes)
2. Adoption of Agenda, Review of Action Items - Olivier Crépin-Leblond (3 minutes)
3. Update on ALAC Response to GNSO Small Group DNS Abuse Questions - Alan Greenberg and Justine Chew (5 mins)
4. Discussion on "UA Day" Plans - Satish Babu, ALAC Liaison to the UASG and APRALO Chair (10 mins)
5. Overview of Closed Generics and Discussion - Jonathan Zuck and TBD (15 minutes)
See: A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs)
See: At-Large Policy Session on "Closed Generics" at ICANN73
6. Workgroup and Small Team Updates ( 20 minutes)
At-Large Workspace: Transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (PDP) & GNSO Workspace: Transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (PDP) (5 minutes)
At-Large Representatives
ALAC Members: Steinar Grøtterød and Daniel Nanghaka
ALAC Alternates: Raymond Mamattah and Lutz Donnerhacke
ALAC Observers: Chokri Ben Romdhane, Hans Bathija, K Mohan Raidu, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
See: Losing FOA Working Document, Auth-Info Codes Working Document and Additional Security Measures
7. Policy comment updates - Jonathan Zuck, Claudia Ruiz, drafting team member(s) and all (5 minutes)
Upcoming Public Comment Proceedings
Root Zone Update Process Study CPWG
The March 2016 proposal to transition the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions from the U.S. Department of Commerce to the global multistakeholder community called for a study to investigate the robustness of the operational arrangements for making changes to the root zone content to reduce or eliminate single points of failure. ICANN org commissioned this study, which is now ready for public review.
Policy Status Report: Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure Policy (UDRP) CPWG
This Public Comment proceeding seeks input on the UDRP Policy Status Report. ICANN org will update the report to include relevant information from Public Comments.
Root Zone Label Generation Rules Version 5 (RZ-LGR-5) CPWG
To determine valid top-level Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) labels and their variant labels, the script communities have finalized their Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the root zone as per the LGR Procedure. These proposals are integrated into the Root Zone LGR (RZ-LGR) by the Integration Panel into its fifth version. RZ-LGR-5 is aiming to cover 26 scripts concluding work of active Generation Panels. ICANN is seeking input on it from the community.
- N/A
Statement Name | Deadline | Status | Assigned Working Group | Penholder(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A |
8. Any other business (AOB) - Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Jonathan Zuck and all (4 minutes)
9. Next Meeting - Olivier Crépin-Leblond and staff (1 minute)
- CPWG meetings are held weekly on Wednesdays, at rotating times of 13 & 19 UTC.
- Proposed Next Meeting: Wednesday, 13 April at 20:00 UTC
Steinar Grøtterød
Summary of BC Transfer Policy Working Group Call
(Submitted to the GNSO TPR PDP on Apr. 5, 2022)
Post-Creation Lock
Ten days is too short. Leave it at 60 days if possible. Maybe 30 days is a happy medium, but 60 days is still preferable. The longer the better from a trademark enforcement perspective as it prevents having to redo a UDRP or demand letter, and also assists with preventing registrar hopping when a registrar is asked to take enforcement proceedings against an infringing or unlawfully used domain name.
There may be an issue in shortening the period from a registrar’s perspective, in that a registrar customer may take advantage of promotional / loss-leader type pricing for the initial year and then the customer moves away to another registrar.
Change of Registrant Lock
The default rule should be a transfer lock following a change of registrant. However, a registrar should be required in a transparent manner, to enable a registrant, upon request to opt-out of the transfer lock or to reduce the transfer lock, rather then leave it to each registrar to decide whether they will generally permit opt-outs. Nevertheless, each registrar should retain discretion as to whether to permit a transfer even if the registrant has ostensibly opted out, for security reasons. A transfer lock should not prevent registrants and businesses from effecting bona fide transfers when necessary or desirable. There should be a fact-based rationale for the determination of the length of the default transfer lock, whether it is 60 or 30 days, for example. A BC member is looking to see whether Domain Abuse Activity Reporting data can provide any insight into the appropriate length for transfer locks.
Change of Registrar Lock
This lock does not appear to be of significant concern as it would usually coincide with a change of registrant lock. However, a registrant should not be prevented from transferring a domain name from one registrar to another, even after a recent registrar change, unless there is another type of lock at play.
Zak