2024-04-16 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Notes/ Action Items

Action Item: By Monday, 22 April: WG members who recommend an exemption procedure for Rec. 17 to put forward suggested changes to the recommendation text; examples could include additional auditing requirements, detailed definition for "case-by-case basis," additional parameters around definition of established customer relationship, etc.

1.Welcome and Chair Updates

a.No meeting schedule for 7 May due to CP Summit

2.Discuss textual updates to CORD Recommendations

a. CORD Recommendations for Initial Report:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_lZLOmNQJKqAsAqxHTv8W5TQeRIm58YvS4vCPIwEdbE/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

b.IPC seems to be generally in line with BC comments to "cannot live with section” of document.

c.Rec 3 has been slightly restructured and added to ref to Rec 2. Added language to show cohesion.

d.Reg 3.4. CORD has been replaced with written out “Change of Registration Data”.

e.Rec 4.4. clarifies retention period of opt-out data for at least 15 months.

f.The WG seems to agree with the 15 months recommendation.g

g.Rec. 4.6 added language where RRs MAY change their opt-out options at the data field level.

3.Continue discussion of Group 1(a) Rec 17 (Established Relationships)

a.UPDATED: Group 1(a) Rec 17: Registrars MUST apply a 30-day post-change of registrar restriction by default for all domain names transferred into a Registrar; however, on a case-by-case basis and where an Established Relationship exists, the Registrar MAY remove the post-change of registrar restriction on the domain name in fewerless than thirty (30) days for the purpose of an inter-registrar transfer,provided the Registrar maintains a record of both the restriction removal and the related rationale for a period of no fewer than fifteen (15) months following the end of the Registrar’s sponsorship of the registration.).

b.Some groups expressed some concerns regarding Rec 17 during the last meeting.

c.Rec 17 includes now new wording on definition of “established relationship”.

d.At Large expressed concerns on the purpose of Rec 17.

e.RrSG question if the 30 day will prevent abuse of domain name registration. Some business models might not be comfortable with the 30 day lock.

f.WG members stated that the argument of security might not work for this Rec. and the lock might be losened.

g.Lock is seen as a security mechanism to reduce the speed of fraud. WG members suggested to remove the lock and add dispute resolution. Dispute resolution, as explained by other members is out of scope. At Large suggested to keep all locks as security measure in this case. 

h.The flexibility to remove the lock might add to costumer satisfaction with Rr services.

i.ICANN Org explained the background of Rec 17 (For more information, listen to 17 Jan 2023 WG call ) and recalled the reason it is being discussed now is because the WG proposes (Rec 2.4) that a CORD no longer requires a 60-day transfer restriction, and the WG is testing whether there is sufficient security with a mandatory 30 day post-transfer lock (previously agreed rec 17) or with a limited exception.

j.ICANN Org called for WG to decide how these locks and removals are being determined on in detail.

k.WG members called for more data to support the lock removal and provide further reasoning.

l.The group should further clarify the rationale behind Rec 17 and if it can go to public comment.

m.Chair proposed to include Rec 17 for public comment to hear the thoughts of the wider audience.

n.Rec 16 text might need change depending on outcome of discussion.

o.ICANN Org asked WG to please epxand on what "case-by-case basis" means and to add further rationale behind the 30 days lock as well as of what an “established relationship” means.

4.AOB 

a.RySG asked how long does one have to submit a dispute? 15 months? See Rec. 4.4.

b.ICANN Org proposed to discuss offline on Rec 17 before it goes out for public comment or can it be published as is?

c.WG Chair proposed to publish Rec 17 as if for public comment but have different options as mentioned by other WG members in the back.

d.ICANN Org proposed to have a small sub-team on pros and cons of Rec 17.

e.Rec 17 to be further discussed during the next meeting.