GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar
Notes/ Action Items
2. Continue discussion of Charter Question i1 (Full Portfolio Transfers AKA Bulk Transfers) and Charter Question i2 (Change of Sponsorship AKA Partial Bulk Transfers)
i1) In light of these challenges described in section 188.8.131.52 of the Final Issue Report [gnso.icann.org], should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy be revisited or removed in certain circumstances?
The different options for policy language can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b0KIvhRyyO5QSEI4DB4vP78muKvqHneaXOZTcvIiBPQ/edit?usp=sharing
Review Survey [docs.google.com] Responses re: Draft Options
o Remove the reference to fees entirely
o Remove price ceiling (but allow for reasonable fee)
o Retain price ceiling + Include language for apportionment of fees
o Remove price ceiling + algorithm based on number of names transferred
ACTION ITEM: Staff to provide the data on the number of registries that offer BTAPPA services.
Q#2: If you preferred Option 2: "Registry MAY charge a reasonable fee to the gaining Registrar", or if the Group ultimately goes with this option, should there be language regarding a general price ceiling? In other words, should the language read: “Registry MAY charge a reasonable fee, but under no circumstances should the fee exceed [x]”
Q#2a: If you voted YES to including a price ceiling, why do you believe a price ceiling should be included? [Select all that apply]
Q#3: If the Working Group ultimately recommends a price ceiling, what would be an appropriate number?
Q#4: Staff presented a new algorithm-based option for consideration during the last meeting on 19 September. Please familiarize yourself with Option 4 before responding to the next 5 questions (#4-8). As a reminder, one reason an algorithm-based approach was presented was to allow for flexibility over time, predictability, and the removal of specific dollar amounts from the policy. With that in mind, if an algorithm is applied based on the number of domain names, what would be an appropriate percentage? The current example language includes the following: “Registry Operators MAY charge a fee for making the changes only in transfers involving greater than [50,000] total domain names. For qualifying transfers, the affected Registry Operator’s fee must not exceed [0.5%] of the Registry’s wholesale price of the domain name for up to [200,000] domain names.”
Q#9: Who should be responsible for paying the Registry fee (if any)?
WG members to provide their feedback/preferences on the 4 options: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b0KIvhRyyO5QSEI4DB4vP78muKvqHneaXOZTcvIiBPQ/edit?usp=sharing
i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers?
Should proposed BTAPPA updates apply to:
2. all registry operators who offer the BTAPPA (via recommended updates to the BTAPPA)