[GNSO-TPR] Proposed agenda and homework for TPR WG Meeting #101 - 22 August 2023

Caitlin Tubergen caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
Thu Aug 17 15:27:44 UTC 2023

Dear TPR Working Group Members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next TPR Working Group meeting.

Thank you again to Rick, Owen, Steinar, and Sarah for already putting comments into the Working Document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit>. Please review the updated comments, as well as Support Staff’s proposed responses and edits based on the comments received. Additionally, Support Staff has added some concepts based on the discussion from the last meeting. For ease of reference, we have included the concepts in the body of this email.

🚨🚨 ACTION ITEM 🚨🚨 Working Group members have until Monday, 21 August to note edits, comments, concerns, etc. with the proposed preliminary agreements and concepts. The comments from WG members will make up the agenda for our upcoming meeting. As a reminder, the preliminary agreements and proposed updated language can be found in the orange box beginning on p. 3 of the Working Document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit>.

Proposed concepts based on last meeting of WG:

Concept 1:  The Working Group recognizes that a fee may be involved in a full portfolio transfer but believes flexibility is necessary, and the number should not be explicitly prescribed in the Transfer Policy.

Concept 2: The Working Group also recognizes, however, that a price ceiling is helpful to include in the policy language to avoid abusive pricing.

Concept 3: In light of Concept 2, the Working Group believes the fee for a full portfolio transfer must not exceed [$50,000 or $1.00 per domain name transferred].

Concept 4: If the full portfolio transfer involves multiple registries, the affected registries must ensure the collective fee does not exceed the recommended ceiling, and the fee should be apportioned based on number of domain names. By way of example, if a registrar has 60,000 domains under management under two TLDs, e.g., 40,000 names under .ABC, and 20,000 names under .DEF, the combined fee cannot exceed $50,000 USD (per concept 3). Since two thirds of the names under management are registered to .ABC, .ABC registry may bill the registrar for 66.66% of the fee, e.g., $33,333.33, and .DEF may bill the registrar for the remaining 33.33% of the fee, e.g., $16,666.67.

Concept 4(a): [Following the completion of the transfer, the Registry Operator(s) MUST provide notice to ICANN that the transfer is complete, and the notice to ICANN MUST include the number of domain names transferred. Following receipt of notices from all involved registries, ICANN will send a notice to affected Registry Operators with the reported numbers and corresponding percentages of domain names involved in the bulk transfer, e.g., 26% of names for .ABC and 74% of names for .DEF. The Registry Operators MAY then charge the registrar a fee according to their schedule.]

Concept 5: The Working Group notes the Registry Operator should have flexibility to establish and waive fees associated with full portfolio transfers and accordingly, does not recommend a required price floor. So long as the Registry Operator’s fee is below the maximum ceiling, the Registry Operator may establish its price schedule as it chooses, provided the price schedule is communicated transparently to the requesting registrar [(see Rec. x, currently Proposed Preliminary Agreement #4)].

If you have comments or proposed edits to these concepts, please provide them in the Working Document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit> on ICANN-approved Transfers (beginning on p. 3). You may also provide comments via the list.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Julie, Christian, Berry, and Caitlin

Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #101
Proposed Agenda
22 August 2023

1. Welcome and Chair updates

2. Continue discussion of Preliminary Agreements<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gX1N8d3qoktbniRmfGE4-8Un9dPavIKQ3IZYaoe9b0E/edit> from Charter Question i1 (Full Portfolio Transfers AKA Bulk Transfers) and Charter Question i2 (Change of Sponsorship AKA Partial Bulk Transfers)

i1) In light of these challenges described in section of the Final Issue Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-issue-report-pdp-transfer-policy-review-12jan21-en.pdf>, should the required fee in Section I.B.2 of the Transfer Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en> be revisited or removed in certain circumstances?

i2) Should the scope of voluntary bulk transfers, including partial bulk transfers, be expanded and/or made uniform across all registry operators? If so, what types of rules and
considerations should govern voluntary bulk transfers and partial bulk transfers?

3. AOB

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/attachments/20230817/88bf6604/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the GNSO-TPR mailing list