[gnso-trans-wg] Draft notes from conference call 27 February

[Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Good morning all,
Please find below brief notes from our call on 27 February. Comments and 
corrections welcome as always.
Also, please note that a new call is scheduled for Wednesday 5 March at 16.00 
UTC.
Best regards from the APNIC meeting in Taipei!

Olof

-----------------------------
Draft notes from conference call 27 February

Participants: Chuck Gomez, Mike O'Connor, Tim Ruiz, Robert Hoggarth, Glen de 
Saint Géry, Olof Nordling

In the order of Tom's document, the remaining issues were addressed with 
conclusions as follows:

8 and 9 (and 17). Conclusion: 8 and 9 both relate to the identification of the 
legal registrant and to finding the proper balance between security and speed 
of transfers. 9 may be difficult, but reflects an important problem to address. 
Agreed to combine 8 and 9, within the second group. Agreed potentially also to 
combine both with 17, see reasoning below.

14. Conclusion: The issue is primarily a compliance matter and a review may be 
appropriate in that context, but it is not a policy matter. Accordingly, 14 is 
put on the delete list.

16. Conclusion: 16 has clearly got compliance aspects but also potential policy 
aspects, so it was agreed to keep it on the list for the second group.

19. Conclusion: This issue was given low priority by the previous WG but 
solutions seem to be easy to find and to implement. 19 is kept on the list for 
the second group.

For the third group:

3. Conclusion: This issue may be more easily solved through other approaches, 
but it was agreed to keep 3 in the third group. Another approach discussed 
would be to enable the gaining registrar to initiate a transfer, an idea with 
much wider implications.

10. Conclusion: 10 is an appropriate policy aspect to address that would 
prepare for a progressive step. 10 is kept in the third group.

11. Conclusion: The approach in 11 raises concerns about both additional 
security risks and the viability of finding suitable third parties. 
Accordingly, 11 is put on the suggested delete list.

12. Conclusion: While recognizing that transfers of sizeable domain portfolios 
happen, the demand for 12 is not obvious as registrars have ways of addressing 
such situations. Ancillary matters, like potential 
registrant/registrar/registry vulnerabilities and the number of FOAs required, 
may justify policy development and 12 is kept in the third group.

13. Conclusion: 13 should be a non-issue in the transfer policy context, as the 
registrant should be able to opt-out from a privacy service prior to a 
transfer. Accordingly, 13 is put on the suggested delete list.

17. Conclusion: The approach in 17 would be useful for verification purposes, 
so there are connections to 8 and 9 above. It is also potentially related to 
escrow requirements and evokes a number of complex questions relating to access 
to data. Agreed to put 17 in the second group and potentially to combine it 
with 8 and 9 above.

Chuck will update his new document with the outcomes of this call and 
distribute a new draft prior to next call. The next call is planned to take 
place on Wednesday 5 March at 16.00 UTC.