[GNSO-TPR] Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Homework

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Working Group members,

As a reminder, there are two “homework” items for Working Group members to focus on between now and our meeting on 27 July:


  *   Please add your comments and suggested edits to this document on the definition of the Transfer Authorization Code: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sML9k6laK67aS-dmHSmxrf80yF_ktI0K8G_zspXRjYU/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1sML9k6laK67aS-dmHSmxrf80yF_ktI0K8G_zspXRjYU/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!rQUSUSbY_eUbF8n-_cjIYOO0pi9CGk0NSYqYZ5DK_QRWICQ6-L0G-bDptk8U9nx8xVodNPMOAQ$>
  *   Please begin to think about charter question a6 on Additional Security Measures (see text below).

If you have any questions, please respond on the mailing list.

Kind regards,
Emily, Julie, Caitlin, and Berry



From: GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Roger D Carney via GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr at icann.org>
Reply to: Roger D Carney <rcarney at godaddy.com>
Date: Monday, 12 July 2021 at 17:40
To: "gnso-tpr at icann.org" <gnso-tpr at icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Transfer Policy Review PDP WG Homework

Dear Working Group members,

As discussed on our last call, we will not be meeting on the 13th or 20th of July. During this time, the small team will create proposals related to the charter questions on AuthInfo Codes/Transfer Authorization Codes (which we will review at our next meeting on July 27th), and additionally, I would like the entire group to focus on the following between now and our meeting on the 27th:


  *   The Working Group appears to generally agree that we should use a standard term “Transfer Authorization Code” and should recommend a definition for the TAC. Staff has prepared a working document to assist with refining associated recommendation language. Please add your comments and suggested edits directly to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sML9k6laK67aS-dmHSmxrf80yF_ktI0K8G_zspXRjYU/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1sML9k6laK67aS-dmHSmxrf80yF_ktI0K8G_zspXRjYU/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!rQUSUSbY_eUbF8n-_cjIYOO0pi9CGk0NSYqYZ5DK_QRWICQ6-L0G-bDptk8U9nx8xVodNPMOAQ$>
  *   Please begin to think about charter question a6 on Additional Security Measures. This is the next topic on our work plan following AuthInfo Codes/Transfer Authorization Codes:



a6) Survey respondents noted that mandatory domain name locking is an additional security enhancement to prevent domain name hijacking and improper domain name transfers. The Transfer Policy does not currently require mandatory domain name locking; it allows a registrar to NACK an inter-registrar transfer if the inter-registrar transfer was requested within 60 days of the domain name’s creation date as shown in the registry RDDS record for the domain name or if the domain name is within 60 days after being transferred. Is mandatory domain name locking an additional requirement the Working Group believes should be added to the Transfer Policy?

If you have any questions, please share them on list.


Kind regards,
Roger

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/attachments/20210720/078d523d/attachment.html>