[CPWG] Minutes from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP meeting on May 30, 2023

[Steinar Grøtterød]

In order to save time.

The WG continued the discussion to the TDRP Charter questions connected to Phase 2:

>From the ICANN Staff minutes:
At-Large has indicated support for the registrants to have a way into the TDRP in cases where the process isn’t followed.

The tough part is that with the TDRP there has to be a clear policy violation – although most transfer dispute issues are not policy related.  This WG is considering whether to make a recommendation to do something outside of this group.  See charter question g3.

Phase 2, charter question g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient:
i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP?
ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered?
In my view, the challenge is that the TDRP is to be used when there is a breach in the defined inter-registrar transfer process - not for cases connected to domain name theft, hijacking etc.

Unfortunately, the majority of the WG members are in favour of creating another process to secure the registrant possibility to dispute.

My recommendation is that ALAC review and comment the final version of responses to the Phase 2 charter questions in the Public Comments period.

The WG final draft for the Phase 2 Charter questions will be completed and discussed at ICANN77

Regards,
Steinar Grøtterød
At-Large Representative

(Also posted to the CPWG site<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=244942680>)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230531/543b1006/attachment.html>