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

Tue Sep 13 11:00:13 UTC 2022

Dear Steinar,
I would like for  all the efforts that you are providing  in order to make
the At-large community updated about the TRP WG activities in addition to
your active participation in this WG.
No doubt that with the absence of objective Metrics it will be very hard
for the community members to decide for a precise lock period and proposals
will differ.
No doubt, in the absence of objective metrics, it will be very difficult
for the community members to decide on a precise period of lockdown and the
proposals will be multiple.

In my opinion the lock period in the case of inter registrants transfer
should be delegate to the registrants and no need to mention a lock period
in the CoR policy since from end-user perspective this period should be
reduced at the duration of the  management or financial process , so
registrants should improve this management process duration in order to
avoid a long lock period that will affects the services  offered to the end
user, a similar recommendations that  could be added to the policy CoR
without mentioning a static lock period that will handicape all actors and
that could evolve in a short period.

Friendly regards
Chokri

Le mer. 7 sept. 2022 à 07:14, Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org> a
écrit :

> 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.
>       - Had a fruitful discussion last week on the CPWG call.
>       - 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:
>       - Wonder if Compliance has some data?
>       - Registrars have indicated that they don’t have data.
>       - Without data we should remove it.
>       - 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.
>       - Compliance tracks transfer complaints in general, but does not
>       break down to “inter registrar" vs. “COR”.
>       - 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.
>       - Not sure that we can get valuable data as to why there was a NACK
>       in the first place.
>       - 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.
>       - 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).
>       - 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 2022 at 16:00 UTC* can be found on the agenda wiki page
> <https://community.icann.org/x/BwVpD>(attendance included) and the GNSO
> Master calendar
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2022__;!!PtGJab4!vZdE84iVM-1QJ1D7deBk7YLs762A0a7CKZCW9WEuS-kwSDVItUTQIDSY2VVe4xM40A6qESvEAw$>
> .
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Steinar Grøtterød
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220913/d47a1bc8/attachment.html>