Logo

050040040 Transfer Policy PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
34:31
You can find the link to the Goals Working Document and the Terms and Definitions Working Document here: https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/Working+Documents
Andrea Glandon - ICANN Org
34:44
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
34:57
Direct links to Google Docs:
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
34:57
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yjj2_CtrqJ46wBbHnaZwqI2ZBf7sBFEN3b3x-rEncPg/edit
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
35:07
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yU4Tu0cfw9Ppps5V5sC8-Q1qVWtJNPKiQLbI7VhcHdo/edit
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
35:48
Draft outreach document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MsaU6sc3TU3azo2-pCWW9A6GWJ0a7XzT/edit
zzzZZZzzz_Volker Greimann (RRSG)
38:58
no
zzzZZZzzz_Volker Greimann (RRSG)
39:25
It is out of scope for ICANN policy
Kristian Ørmen (RrSG)
39:48
If you phrase it like that it would include email, websites, Minecraft servers and so on
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
40:49
I do not want my registrar to be required to provide DNS service that is via the losing the registrar. Way too many details to work out, and outside of our scope
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
42:44
@Steve- It is not something that we should be considering now as this is 100% outside of the scope of this PDP.
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
43:36
My registrar handles 10,000+ inbound transfers per month and I am not aware of this being an issue.
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
44:37
@Mike- the GNSO Council sets the scope, which was already done. They set our charter, which is only something the GNSO Council can change. Not participants in the PDP.
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
47:00
sorry taking on what? Supporting registrants?
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
47:41
just to note that IETF doesn’t create policy. so can’t come up with policy. We should.
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
47:43
My point is that it’s not really an issue that we see as registrars.
Andrea Glandon - ICANN Org
48:45
**Members: when using chat, please select Panelists and Attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
50:16
You can find the spreadsheet for this agenda item here: https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2021-06-29+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
50:22
(Underneath the agenda)
DANIEL K. NANGHAKA (At-large)
55:07
This shows there is need to enhance communication during transfers between the registrant and registrar
Crystal Ondo - Google (RrSG)
57:31
It would be helpful to put these #s in perspective. Does ICANN have a ballpark # for monthly transfers that occur across RRs?
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
58:07
@Crystal- I think ICANN did include that in the transfer review report. Something in the 200k per month IIRC.
Crystal Ondo - Google (RrSG)
58:17
Thanks, Owen :)
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
58:19
(But I may be wildly off with my recollection)
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
58:20
what is missing here the registry reports of the amount of transfers on all gTLD per year.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
58:58
Transfer Policy Status Report: https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/IRTPPSRRevised_GNSO_Final.pdf
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
59:11
Includes older metrics on transfers as Owen noted
Crystal Ondo - Google (RrSG)
59:36
414,000 domain transfers occurred per month—or 4,968,000 per year—during the observation period (2009 – 2017)
Crystal Ondo - Google (RrSG)
59:47
Thanks, Emily
Greg DiBiase (GNSO Council Liaison)
01:00:43
sorry if I missed this- but can we pull out the Net4india transfer reports that may be skewing the data?
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
01:00:52
ICANN compliance should have metrics for number of transfer complaints from late 2013/early 2014 through 2017 to compare number of complaints as a percent of transfers
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
01:00:59
with around 5 million transfers per year the numbers look low
Steve Crocker (SME)
01:01:29
I need to drop off briefly
Andrea Glandon - ICANN Org
01:01:59
**Members: when using chat, please select Panelists and Attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
DANIEL K. NANGHAKA
01:03:42
Do you mean domain hijacking or domain theft?
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
01:08:25
@Daniel- no. Prior to GDPR/Temp Spec, registrants could see their own info in whois output. After, it was either redacted or a number of registrars used privacy/proxy, and people were confused why.
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
01:09:16
ICANN Compliance did a lot of outreach to registrants explaining why they saw the change, and confirmed nothing nefarious was happening.
DANIEL K. NANGHAKA
01:10:12
I think after GDPR a lot of changes took place some registrars started selling Domain Privacy Protection to reduce spamming of their clients
Steve Crocker (SME)
01:11:28
I’ve returned
Owen Smigelski (Namecheap) (RrSG)
01:11:40
@Daniel- a number of registrars (including Tucows and Namecheap) used privacy/proxy as a quick way to comply with GDPR before implementing long term solutions (and this was done for free to registrants- complying with GDPR via p/p service was not a revenue source)
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:12:10
welcome back.
zzz Jothan Frakes (RrSG ALT PLISK Registrar)
01:12:36
@Daniel or offering privacy as a default to cover GDPR liability + nuisance filter for registrants to help the registrant not get harrassed by marketers who harvest whois
Farzaneh Badiei (NCSG)
01:12:46
Yeah privacy as a service. A bad idea.
DANIEL K. NANGHAKA (At-Large)
01:13:12
@Owen, there are some who used it but later the service was made free
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
01:13:36
looks good
Steinar Grøtterød (At-Large)
01:16:31
Who should “create” the transfer authorisation code, registrar or registry?
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:16:46
Here is the link to the AuthInfo Codes Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9PAnxWFUuPofLQCWIQXz8lT7KEj1HgH3b_obh0AK00/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]. As a reminder, Staff has updated the Working Document to summarize deliberations that have taken place so far (see text in blue in the document), incorporating and resolving existing comments. Members are encouraged to review provide feedback. An archive of previous versions of the document is being maintained on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/e4P8CQ
DANIEL K. NANGHAKA (At-Large)
01:17:29
@Steiner, the Registry creates the auth code
Holida Yanik - ICANN Org
01:18:22
@Thomas Keller (RrSG): a large number of reporters misunderstand ICANN’s role and authority, and Compliance still puts a great effort to educate such reporters. In most cases, complaints closed as out of scope (e.g. not obtaining required evidences, issues resolved before addressing the case with registrars )
Rich Brown (RrSG)
01:19:02
there was earlier discussion of assigning TTL to auth codes, and I think that also has bearing on this matter. But, it appears that the registry should be 'holder' of the code, while one exists. The code being set by the registrar(losing), and communicated to the registry.
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
01:26:50
joint controllers
Barbara Knight (RySG)
01:30:28
James +1
Kristian Ørmen (RrSG)
01:32:16
+1 tom
DANIEL K. NANGHAKA (At-Large)
01:38:50
@Mike, the auth code is key here
Thomas Keller (RrSG)
01:40:43
Front and Center
Crystal Ondo - Google (RrSG)
01:42:18
Agreed, Kristian. TTL (and perhaps character requirements) enforced at the RY level makes sense. Creation, passing to RY and registrant, can stay with RRs.
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
01:46:23
Agreed Kristian
Crystal Ondo - Google (RrSG)
01:50:04
+1 James. If one goal is to make transfers easier on registrants, 5 days seems silly. On-demand is quite doable.
JW λ John Woodworth (ISPCP)
01:50:31
+1 Jim
DANIEL K. NANGHAKA (At-Large)
01:51:04
I agree on demand is doable - 5 days is crazy
Rich Brown (RrSG)
01:54:17
while generating and using an auth code is instantaneous, getting that code may take time. like registrant verification, reseller communications, etc. this measure provides a means to keep a registrar within compliance of providing a code in a reasonable time.
Thomas Keller (RrSG)
01:54:53
+1 Rich
Theo Geurts (RrSG)
01:56:38
Thanks Kristian we have other solutions for those cases