2024-06-04 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Notes/ Action Items

AI: All those parties that have not contributed to the document, please complete any input before the ICANN80 session.

AI: WG members agreed to provide wording for that change in Rec 22 by ICANN80.

AI: WG members to provide wording for changes in Rec. 24 by ICANN80.

AI: WG to go through cannot live document and provide final input by ICANN80.

AI: ICANN Org asked WG to go through GNSO project list and review the details.

AI: WG to consider the adjusted numerical order of recommendations

1. Welcome and Chair Updates
2. Preparation for ICANN80
   1. Review any "Cannot Live With" recommendations [docs.google.com]

AI: All those parties that have not contributed to the document, please complete any input before the ICANN80 session.

1. BC informed the WG that they can live with all recs as they currently stand.
2. RrSG pointed to rec 5.3 and noted that there's a requirement that these notifications to the domain owner should explain how to take action if the transfer was invalid. RrSG would like to add further guidance here.
3. WG opened the discussion on transfer reversals and the right amount of instruction to provide.
4. Some WG members pointed out that the TEAC requirements are already quite detailed and don’t need further work.
5. Discussion moved to Rec 22 and 23, which focus on the reasons why a transfer would be denied.
6. RrSG pointed out to the 60 day lock after transfer, which has exceptions to it in Rec. 20 and 19. Hence, Rec 22 should also mention the exceptions to this. WG asked the exception removes the restriction, so do you need to mention it?

AI: WG members agreed to provide wording for that change in Rec 22 by ICANN80.

1. Rec 23 mentions 60 day lock after transfer, but that was removed?
2. Rec24 talks about auto renewal and that a transfer cannot be denied if the fee has not been paid. WG members discussed how the fees would be reimbursed in cases like these? Chair proposed to add more clarity on that.

AI: WG members to provide wording for changes in Rec. 24 by ICANN80.

1. Rec 5 – change wording in both parts to “losing registrar”
2. Rec 26 – RrSG suggest for this rec to be a standalone policy. However, WG proposed to add wording to make clear that the WG is suggesting that no PDP is needed at the moment.
3. Rec 25 – RrSG suggested to clarify email address change as material change (25.1) to note the exception of 25.3. WG suggested to add clarity here.

AI: WG to go through cannot live document and provide final input by ICANN80.

1. If none/few, discuss presentation of “High Impact” recommendations [docs.google.com]

1. There about 10 high impact policy change items.
2. There only high impact recs in group 1B and group 2 recommendations.
3. These high impact items will be discussed during ICANN80 if there remaining time.

1. Speaker volunteers
1. Discuss post-ICANN80 plans
   1. The goal is to have a final draft of the initial report by 25th of July.
   2. There is no WG meeting on the 18th of June.
   3. Due to holiday season in August, ICANN Org highly recommends to be done with the initial report by the end of July taking into account the generally low participation rate during holiday season.

AI: ICANN Org asked WG to go through GNSO project list and review the details.

1. ICANN Org explained that due to the density of the initial report, we might need to break with the standards of these reports in order to provide a more digestable version to the readers and public commentators.
2. The new component to this proposed structure is that there will be embedded links within the document.
3. ICANN Org also proposed to adjust the recs numerical order for consitency with the swimlane and coherence in the initial report.

AI: WG to consider the adjusted numerical order of recommendations.

1. AOB