00:28:18	Julie Bisland - ICANN Org: Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
00:31:40	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): clawback
00:31:47	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): (though I prefer fast undo, it's nicer)
00:31:51	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): fast undo or 'rollback'
00:31:59	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): less claw-y
00:32:00	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): nice
00:34:18	Keiron Tobin - GoDaddy LLC (RrSG): I remember seeing 2026, thinking it seems so far away, but now we’re in 2023 I’m not too sure.
00:37:46	Berry Cobb - ICANN Org: ICANN Bulk approved transfers.
00:37:55	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): is "ICANN-approved" = bulk?
00:38:05	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): ah Berry foresaw my q
00:38:16	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): always 15 chess moves ahead, Berry
00:38:34	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): Bulk "Partial"
00:39:06	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): Owen are you talking about partial bulk?
00:39:36	Owen Smigelski (Namecheap / RrSG): No
00:40:01	Owen Smigelski (Namecheap / RrSG): I am talking about a transfer that the registrar initiates rather than the registrant. It’s often for a type of bulk transfer, but it is without ICANN approval.
00:40:10	Owen Smigelski (Namecheap / RrSG): And often tied to resellers as Theo is describing
00:40:14	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): ah ok yes that's different
00:40:49	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): and 'transfer renewals' that consolidate registrations under a single iana ID where a registrar may operate >1
00:41:11	Theo Geurts Realtime Register (RrSG): That looks more in scope
00:42:07	Steinar Grøtterød (at-large): @Theo: Are you referring to reseller “push” within the same registrar?
00:42:26	Owen Smigelski (Namecheap / RrSG): @Steinar- it can be across different registrars
00:42:40	Theo Geurts Realtime Register (RrSG): within the same registrar is not an issue
00:42:41	Berry Cobb - ICANN Org: b5) Should the ability for registrants to request AuthInfo Codes in bulk be streamlined and codified? If so, should additional security measures be considered?
b6) Does the CPH TechOps research provide a logical starting point for future policy work on AuthInfo Codes, or should other options be considered?
b7) Should required differentiated control panel access also be considered, i.e., the registered name holder is given greater access (including access to the auth code), and additional users, such as web developers would be given lower grade access in order to prevent domain name hijacking?
00:44:17	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): [CPH TechOps Co-Chair hat on] we have our meeting tomorrow and can hash b6 a little + have plans to meet f2f @ICANN 76
00:46:00	Theo Geurts Realtime Register (RrSG): +1 to the proposed changes
00:47:08	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): Yes, the changes seem reasonable
00:50:04	Keiron Tobin - GoDaddy LLC (RrSG): Thank you Emily. Really helpful
00:50:11	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): [thinking]
00:50:19	Prudence Malinki (Markmonitor RrSG): No questions here!
00:51:32	Berry Cobb - ICANN Org: We changed it just for you Jothan.  ;-)
00:53:04	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): Accelerating Phase 2 will help prevent lost 'disposable effort' cycles in 1b
00:53:14	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): that might have had to be re-done.
00:54:03	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): hopefully the extended, consolidated comment period reduces the concerns from those beyond this group who'd have preferred two comment periods
00:54:20	Berry Cobb - ICANN Org: “Transfer Restriction”
00:57:57	Steinar Grøtterød (at-large): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O3vBcIr-mkDcdF5hX8jRcLXu0DoIWDTgMl4HrUQBWYs/edit?usp=sharing
00:59:48	Emily Barabas - ICANN Org: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wq4dHcIFR5XogoutSh0klkCyhZFUlS1z7cl2ilv9c9I/edit?usp=sharing
01:04:58	Steinar Grøtterød (at-large): In Rec #3 We proposed “Date and time that the TAC was issued and information about when the TAC will expire”, will the expire be given by the Registry?
01:06:05	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): This is a hard one to balance - the Rr needs the ability to null the TAC, but we've sort of lost an element of standardization
01:06:12	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): nulling it should be an exception to the norm...
01:10:47	Theo Geurts Realtime Register (RrSG): Agreed Sarah, it needs to be a predictable process for the registrant
01:12:47	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): touchdown!
01:13:13	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): right - minimum is also #problematic
01:13:36	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): yes, the only concern with minimum even being merited is 'escape room' registrars
01:14:20	Sarah Wyld (RrSG): good stuff Rick, thanks for that
01:14:59	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): We left out minimum but there remains a concern that 'escape room' registrars might make the availability window unusably short
01:15:41	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): correct Steinar
01:16:02	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): clientTransferProhibited and serverTransferProhibited would halt a transfer
01:19:21	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): I may not have said it well, but basically, some registrars might implement the NACK by setting TAC to NULL , either to ensure no transfer could be initiated or to be thorough
01:19:47	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): with or without the eligibility statuses
01:21:34	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): completely see the point . as registrars we also get customers who change their minds or otherwise may want their registrar to halt the process and not have to wait out the clock on a TAC
01:25:19	Rick Wilhelm (PIR/ RySG): Correct Emily
01:25:29	Rick Wilhelm (PIR/ RySG): Among other reasons
01:25:42	Rick Wilhelm (PIR/ RySG): “Let me count the ways”
01:33:18	Berry Cobb - ICANN Org: Dawn your swimming caps.
01:33:23	Jothan Frakes (RrSG): yeah the feedback across the winter holidays took a bit longer than typical on the rec 13 stuff but we can get that rationale out soon by email
01:33:41	Emily Barabas - ICANN Org: Many thanks Jothan and small team.
01:36:09	Emily Barabas - ICANN Org: I think we covered it all