Request for Comment - Transfer Policy Review Preliminary Recommendations

[Yao Amevi A. Sossou]

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/20240330/ce7ae4d0/attachment.htm>