2023-09-26 Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Call

Notes/ Action Items

 ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: 

1. Staff to provide the data on the number of registries that offer BTAPPA services.
2. WG members to provide their feedback/preferences on the 4 options: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b0KIvhRyyO5QSEI4DB4vP78muKvqHneaXOZTcvIiBPQ/edit?usp=sharing

Notes:

1. Welcome and Chair updates

• Hopefully the survey will help us to get to a better spot.
• Just a few weeks to finish up and to ICANN78.

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 3.1.7.2 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

o    Other?

Survey Results:

• Seems like the most popular option was #3 and overwhelming support for a price ceiling. 
• Some indicated reluctance for including pricing at all.
• No agreement on a number for a price ceiling.
• Responses on algorithm price ceiling were also quite split.
• Changed language to “Registry MAY charge”.

Discussion:

• Question: How would premium priced names work if we were to consider the variable algo?  Would the standard registration fee be counted for premiums?
• Jim Galvin, RySG: With respect to the fee structure the Registries don’t have an opinion but if there is a fee reference would prefer the status quo, but depends on what Registrars decide to do.   Preference for apportionment as in option #3.
• Option #4 deals with that as well (number of names transferred).
• From a non-registry point of view transferring 50k domains is not much more work than 1k names.
• Be able to apportion the fee based on what is coming out of the registrar but RySG prefers keeping the current fee.
• On BTAPPA we need to think about this more and understand what others (particularly Registrars) think.
• We want the registries to discuss this but not wait too long.
• Should be able to get a response in a small number of weeks.
• Question: Do know how many registries are offering BTAPPA and how many domains are covered? Answer: All of the approved BTAPPAs are published, so we could get that information for the group if helpful.
• I think they are listed in the RSEP page, but it may not expand out where providers list multiple TLDs within them.

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]”

• So even with the small with a high, with a registry who has everything automated, and actually, who can do the work, for $500 can still charge $10,000, because we decided that was reasonable.
• The ceiling just becomes the standard fee.
• We still need a justification for that fee. 
• We are only talking about a full portfolio move, not partial.
• Question: Are we talking about eliminating the cap and substituting reasonable fee? Are we talking about eliminating it altogether?
• Everybody's talking about removing the specific fee number and putting reasonable in there, not removing the fee itself.
• Not sure why there is a need for a fee for 50K but not <50K.
• There is a cost it was decided on 50K.  It’s a balance.
• WG has already agreed on “Registry MAY charge”.
• Registry is getting a better business partner out of this.
• INSERT 1255 Could have a situation that no one want to take the transfer.
• Seemed like a price ceiling made sense to add to “reasonable”.

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]

• Support for transparency and concerns about high fees.
• Jim Galvin, RySG: Discussion has gotten a lot of play considering how infrequently this is used.
• Helpful to have more feedback on this from registries.

Q#3: If the Working Group ultimately recommends a price ceiling, what would be an appropriate number?

• Current language was favored.
• Kind of spread apart.
• Big issue is where original fee came from but bigger question is whether “reasonable” option #2 is an improvement?

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.”

• This was based on a percent number.
• Some discussion on factoring in premium names – expectation was if there was a mix the price would be wholesale.
• Not a lot of agreement in the responses.
• It is complex and there is no predictability.
• Know wholesale prices will be increasing – the variable will change.
• On transparency: wholesale prices are not public information.  Couldn’t be managed by an independent third party.
• As we’ve been talking through this there is less support.

Q#9: Who should be responsible for paying the Registry fee (if any)?

• The Gaining Registrar (current) – almost 90%.

Summary:

• Sounds like people are more comfortable with options #3 and #2 based on today’s discussion – if we can get down to two options to take to public comment that would be great.  If we could get to one option and not go to public comment that is better, but don’t think we are there.

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: 

1. all registry operators (via an update to the Transfer Policy),

OR

2. all registry operators who offer the BTAPPA (via recommended updates to the BTAPPA)

Discussion:

• With are new security measures those transfers become more difficult.
• How many businesses would these changes affect?
• If we don’t come up with a solution and stay with the status quo then we are taking two steps back re: competition among registrars.
• With BTAPPA the reason this is crucial is because other work we are doing would dry up opportunity.

3. AOB