<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Dear all,</div><div>Please find below the draft agenda for Monday's meeting as well as a draft summary of last week's call on Charter Question C and also a draft work plan as discussed.</div><div>Best wishes,</div><div>Lars</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>1. Roll Call / SOI Updates</div><div><br></div><div>2. Discussion on draft work plan (see below)</div><div><br></div><div>3. Discussion on draft summary on Question C (see below)</div><div><br></div><div>4. If time: Revision of previous discussion and draft recommendations on Charter Question B</div><div><br></div><div>5. Next steps / confirm next meeting </div></div></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>----</div><div><br></div><div>Draft <b>Work Plan</b>:</div><div><br></div><div>The submission deadline for work documents for the Singapore meeting is Monday <b>3 March 2014</b> - this will give the Group eight more meetings, including 13 January and 3 March if a <b>draft </b>Initial Report is to be submitted n time for the Singapore Meeting.</div><div><div><br></div><div>Considering that Charter question b (multiple transfers) and c (registrant access to TDRP) are still in need of discussion, here a proposed time table:</div><div><br></div><div>13 January: Discussion on Charter Question B</div><div><br></div><div>20 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C</div><div><br></div><div>27 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C</div><div><br></div><div><i>By the end of January a draft Initial Report circulated by Staff</i></div><div><br></div><div>03 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report</div><div><br></div><div>10 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report</div><div><br></div><div>17 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report</div><div><br></div><div>24 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report</div><div><br></div><div>03 March: Signing off on Draft Initial Report</div><div><br></div><div>24-27 March: ICANN Meeting Singapore:</div><div><br></div><div>7 April: First meting after Singapore; publication of Initial Report and open Public Comment</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div><b>Summary</b> based on Monday's discussion of Charter Question C (Registrant access to TDRP)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The Working Group discussed at length the issue of whether or not to modify the TDRP to allow for a registrant-initiated TDRP.</div><div><br></div><div>As part of these discussions, the Working Group has drawn up a number of scenarios, in which registrants have suffered an unwanted loss of control over a domain name and for which, in the Groups' opinion, the current TDRP does not provide adequate solutions.</div><div><br></div><div>In addition, the Working Group has also consulted with ICANN Compliance to understand better the circumstances under which Compliance can and does act based on existing TDRP provisions.</div><div><br></div><div>In summary, the Group agrees that, as long as there is just one registrant who has a complaint concerning an inter-registrar transfer (the kind of transfer that the policy was designed for) then the current TDRP rules are sufficient and provide adequate solutions - via ICANN Compliance and/or Dispute resolution providers.</div><div><br></div><div>The issues and scenarios that the Group has found and discussed, however, lie outside the current scope of the TDRP, because these scenarios involve two or more registrants disputing an inter-registrant transfer. It is these circumstances that require new consensus policy. However, the Group feels that the drafting of such a policy goes beyond the scope of this group and in fact beyond the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy that is the focus of this PDP. Therefore, the Working Group calls for an Issue Report with the view to creating an inter-registant transfer dispute policy. Recommendation #1 of the IRTP Part C Final Report that lays out the adoption of a change of registrant consensus policy could serve as a starting point for this undertaking. </div></div></div></blockquote></div></span></div></blockquote></body></html>