Request for Comment - Transfer Policy Review Preliminary Recommendations

[Emmanuel Vitus]

Hello Ken,
Thank you for the insightful summary. Your comprehensive answers to the
questions have been appreciated. I personally have no additional questions.
Is it possible to switch the document to tracking mode to deter anonymous
modifications.
Best,
Emmanuel

Le sam. 30 mars 2024 à 22:56, Yao Amevi A. Sossou <soyames at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Dear Ken,
> Thank you for the clarification. I'm looking forward to contribute for our
> questions.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 11:32 PM Ken Herman <ken at kherman.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Yao Amevi. Thank you for our questions. I have posted responses to
>> most of them, but a couple of them I will want to confer with the working
>> group coordinators just so I am correct in my response. I hope that’s
>> helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> In terms of tracking, I believe that each contributor can select either
>> editing or suggesting. Either way, for questions it’s probably better to
>> just put them in.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Yao Amevi A. Sossou <soyames at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2024 10:46 AM
>> *To:* ken at kherman.com
>> *Cc:* NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: Request for Comment - Transfer Policy Review Preliminary
>> Recommendations
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Ken,
>>
>> Thank you.I have added some questions and comments to the document
>> already.
>>
>> But there is no tracking on the document.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> .............................................................
>>
>> Yao Amevi A. Sossou
>>
>> Researcher |IxD| IT Support | Project manager| Human centered
>> Entrepreneurship| SDG Advocate | Internet Governance | Youth IGF
>>
>> Email: soyames at gmail.com
>>
>> Twitter: *https://twitter.com/_amevY2 <https://twitter.com/_amevY2>*
>>
>> LinkedIn: Yao Amevi A. sossou | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameviy/>
>>
>> .............................................................
>>
>> *To promote respect for the environment, thank you to only print this
>> email only when necessary*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 11:17 PM Ken Herman <ken at kherman.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello fellow NCSG members.
>>
>>
>>
>> As an NCSG representative to the Transfer Policy Review Working Group
>> (TPRWG), I seek your input on proposed preliminary recommendations
>> currently under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Specifically, the working group is looking for feedback on the section of
>> the transfer policy related to *Change of Registrant*.
>>
>>
>>
>> This document contains the text of the preliminary recommendations under
>> discussion. Please use this document to add any comments that I can take
>> back to the working group or questions that I will try to answer.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8wx8KXhrwGmeKQEt2SJ8r271YcQ8-yk/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105988793481216121706&rtpof=true&sd=true
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that the working group leadership emphasized that this is not final
>> language, but simply a way to gauge response from a wider audience.
>>
>>
>>
>> Great if I can have all comments or questions by next Friday, April 5. If
>> there is enough interest, I can arrange a zoom session and invite some
>> speakers who are familiar with the working group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some background/context:
>>
>>    1. The current transfer policy (see the link below) includes a
>>    section “II. Inter-Registrant Transfer (Change of Registrant)” which the
>>    working group charter (also linked below) considered to be a problem. As
>>    noted in the charter, “According to the Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team
>>    Report, the Change of Registrant policy ‘does not achieve the stated goals’
>>    and ‘is not relevant in the current & future domain ownership system.’ ”
>>    2. The working group, as you can see in the preliminary
>>    recommendations, suggests changing title from “Change of Registrant’ to
>>    “Change of Registrant Data” (aka CORD), in recognition of the fact that
>>    changing a registrant is mainly the action of altering the contact
>>    information associated with a domain name registration.
>>    3. The working group also suggests removing this section from the
>>    transfer policy and creating a new, separate policy governing any change in
>>    registrant information.
>>    4. One issue that the group contended with concerns a 60-day lock on
>>    any transfer of a domain after changes to registration information and
>>    decided to eliminate any transfer lock. The rationale was that the lock was
>>    confusing and restrictive to registrants. The TPR WG Charter also refers to
>>    this: “Survey responses and data provided by ICANN’s Global Support Center
>>    indicate that registrants do not understand the 60-day lock and express
>>    frustration when it prevents them from completing an inter-registrar
>>    transfer.”
>>    5. A substantial amount of discussion within the WG has focused on
>>    the ability of registrants to “opt out” of notifications of changes to
>>    registration data.
>>
>> Personally, I did not see anything in the discussion or the
>> recommendations that would be a cause of concern, with the possible
>> exception of the issues around opting out of notifications of changes to
>> registration data. But there might be some issues I am not aware of so
>> please have a look and let me know what you think.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken Herman
>>
>> NCUC EC NA Rep
>>
>> ken at kherman.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Current transfer policy:
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2024-02-21-en
>>
>>
>>
>> TPR WG details:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240402/46babf99/attachment.htm>