<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#467886;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Dear fellow NCSG Members<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>After more than three years, the Transfer Policy Review (TPR) PDP is coming to its conclusion and is about to release its final report to the GNSO Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Attached here is the final draft of that report, which the TPR Working Group (WG) has been asked to review by its next meeting on January 21. Since most of the text, including the recommendations, has already been reviewed, the WG has been asked to focus on a small number of textual updates which are highlighted in yellow. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Therefore, on behalf of your TPR WG members representatives (Juan and I), requesting any comments to final report, with a particular focus on these highlighted updates, by Monday, January 20 at noon UTC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>As you may recall, last September each stakeholder group, including the NCSG, submitted comments during the public comment period, and since then the WG has been reviewing those comments and adjusting the recommendations accordingly. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>The NCSG commented on four recommendations; 18, 21, 26, and 27. Our suggestions were largely accepted for recommendations 18 and 21, but for the other two, the working group decided to retain the existing formulations. In summary:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-GB>Recommendation 18 was about putting in place a restriction on transferring a domain name for 30 days (720 hours) after a transfer as a security measure. The recommendation included a provision for lifting the provision and the NCSG comment called for enumerating the conditions of lifting that restriction.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-GB>Recommendation 21 was about reasons that a transfer may be denied, and NCSG called for a provision to allow a registrant to have more information should the denial be for DNS abuse or fraud reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-GB>Recommendation 26 concerned obtaining confirmation from the registrant for changes to registration data and to eliminate the transfer restriction after a change of registrant data. The NCSG suggested that these confirmations be retained.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span lang=EN-GB>Recommendation 27 was about mechanisms used to notify registrants of changes to registrant data, and the NCSG suggested that registrars consider applying all available mechanisms (E-Mail, SMS, etc). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>In balance, your representatives to the TPR WG can accept the recommendations and the report as presented and we could not identify any text that, in the words of the SG chair, “we could not live with”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>We welcome any comments from our community on the attached report and are available to answer any questions anyone may have.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>FYI, All information about the PDP is available here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP">https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Best regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Ken<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>