[CPWG] GNSO TPR PDP meeting on Sep 5, 2022

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Thank you Steinar.

I invite any other ALAC Reps in GNSO PDPs to provide their summarised 
update, if any, by email, like you have done so well.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 07/09/2022 09:13, Steinar Grøtterød wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Due to the cancellation of the CPWG meeting on Sep 7, 2022, I will 
> inform the CPWG of the outcome of the CPWG informal letter to the TPR WG.
>
> From the minutes
>
>   * Update from Steiner on the At-Large summary of the CPWG discussion
>     on Change of Registrant policy.  See attached.
>       o Had a fruitful discussion last week on the CPWG call.
>       o Based on that discussion, if we are going to change anything
>         on the transfer lock the CPWG would like some statistics/data
>         supporting removing that part of the policy.  But we don’t
>         have any statistics.  If we will have transfer lock period it
>         might be reduced to less than 60 days.  Specifically: “Input
>         to the discussion were mostly connected to the question
>         whether the present 60-days transfer lock after a change of
>         registrant data is preventing domain name hijacking.  Further
>         - the majority of the CPWG attendees requested data about the
>         volume of hijacked domain names. These statistics - if
>         available, may indicate if the transfer lock after a change of
>         registrant is needed. The discussion also covered whether a
>         transfer lock is needed for mitigation of domain name hijacking.”
>   * Discussion:
>       o Wonder if Compliance has some data?
>       o Registrars have indicated that they don’t have data.
>       o Without data we should remove it.
>       o >From staff re: question about data: Compliance has provided
>         data related to complaints about the lock itself in Phase 1A,
>         but not specific enough in terms of hijacking.  As to data to
>         “prove” that a lock is necessary or not, we don’t have that
>         level of breakdown/tracking to speak to that issue.
>       o Compliance tracks transfer complaints in general, but does not
>         break down to “inter registrar" vs. “COR”.
>       o The best you can get is the NACK statistics from the Open Data
>         Initiative, but only limited years and not recent.  Does show
>         significant use of the NACK, but can’t correlate it to hijacking.
>       o Not sure that we can get valuable data as to why there was a
>         NACK in the first place.
>       o Registrars offer different levels of security and registrant
>         can pick the model that fits their needs/shop around to get
>         what they are looking for.
>       o I also remember most complaints about COR to Compliance were
>         people annoyed by not being to unlock their domains. For
>         hijacked domains, the hijack happened even with COR process
>         (which hijackers were able to bypass).
>       o It’s a very interesting perspective. As registrars can and do
>         provide security that is superior to minimum requirements
>         under the Transfer Policy. Accordingly, it may be that this is
>         the answer; leave it to registrants to select a registrar with
>         desirable security protocols to prevent unauthorized transfer.
>
> All recordings for the*Transfer Policy Review PDP WG*call held 
> on*Tuesday,06 September 2022at 16:00 UTC*can be foundon theagenda wiki 
> page <https://community.icann.org/x/BwVpD>(attendance included)and 
> theGNSO Master 
> calendar<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2022__;!!PtGJab4!vZdE84iVM-1QJ1D7deBk7YLs762A0a7CKZCW9WEuS-kwSDVItUTQIDSY2VVe4xM40A6qESvEAw$>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steinar Grøtterød
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220907/ce580f91/attachment.html>