DNSO Task Force Meeting September 11, 2002 - Transcript
List of attendees:
DAVID SAFRAN DAN STEINBERG ERICK IRIATE MARILYN CADE ROSS RADER JEFF NEUMAN GRANT FORSYTH CHRISTINE RUSSO
Rick Wesson Dan Halloran ICANN staff Ken Stubbs Affilias Ram Mohan, Affilias David Wascher Manager The Registry at Info Avenue Paul Stahura
Rob Hall, of Momentous Corp (Internic.ca Namescout.com. firstname.lastname@example.org Bruce Beckwith VeriSign Registrar Wanda Ketteman COMPACT 2 Technologies mailto:email@example.com Barbara Barnes Comporium Communications Barbara.Barnes@comporium.com Jennifer Gilliam Brandon Paine Register.com, Inc. Director, Policy and Public Affairs firstname.lastname@example.org Denise Michel
MARILYN: Introduced the call:
We're going to have probably a mix of folks on the call. Some folks will be coming on at 2:30. Other folks will be on for the first 30 minutes, and we'll kind of primarily gear administrative things. So, bear with us during that portion. And, I apologize if we are, we're a bit confused in our communication. But, we need to do a little scheduling and other kinds of planning for the first 30 minutes. And then we're going to turn it over to the open discussion. .
MARILYN: We are pretty close to having everyone who I expect for today. So let's give it one more minute, and then we will get started with the administrative part of the call. And then we'll be joined.. we may be joined earlier. But we'll definitely be joined at 2:30 by 13 people at last count ...
And, where we will have an open call. And I just -- Glenn (ph) maybe what I should do is post the, shall I post your last list to the, to the archives so everyone has the names?
MARILYN: Right. And I had two sets of requests, which haven't gone to you. And Marie (ph) sent that out. So, as far as I know, everyone has the number.
GLENN (ph): And they should have replied via the message that was sent to them, and the number was on that.
KEN STUBBS (ph): I saw the telephone number on the Amber Alert on the Beltway this morning.
MARILYN: But, we definitely need you in a half hour. So if you have to put us on mute or go do something else ...
STUBBS (ph): I'll stay and put you on mute.
MARILYN: And I will, in the meantime, do a roll call. So, let me start with who I know is on the call. I've got -- I know I have Ross (ph), and I have Jeff (ph), and I have Glenn (ph), and I have Marilyn, and I have Eric (ph), and I have Dan (ph). Do I have Marty (ph)? No, OK. Do I have David Safran (ph)?
MARILYN: And I didn't hear Christine (ph). May not have her. Mark McFadden (ph) is not available, send his regrets. I have not heard from Jaime Love (ph) now, Eric (ph), for several weeks. So, perhaps I should just post off to him and check in with him, and I'll do that. I didn't hear Grant (ph). I'm not sure Grant (ph) -- I didn't hear back from Grant (ph), or from Rick Shera (ph). So I'm not sure that we will expect them. But I believe we probably have critical mass of the attendees.
MARILYN: Hi Christine (ph). Welcome. We've got a pretty full house. And as soon as Glenn (ph) comes back, I would like to turn this over to her. Glenn (ph), are you back yet?
MARILYN: OK. Let me tell you guys what we're going to do while Glenn (ph) is finishing another item. What we want to do today in the first 25 minutes or so, is do some administrative planning, and update you on a couple of items related to scheduling, as we know it. And just make sure that we're all on board on what we think needs to happen to plan those kinds of things.
And then, at 2:30 we'll have a group of guests who will participate with us in a dialog about the draft documents. And that will conclude today's call.
MARILYN: ... to do -- what I'd like to do first, before we launch into work, is to turn the meeting over to Glenn (ph) for a short statement that she had contacted me about. And Glenn (ph) I would welcome your comments to the group.
GLENN (ph): Thank you very much Marilyn. Probably a lot of you don't know but, this time a year ago, it was a sort of initiation for me into the DNS O(ph) secretariat. But, much more than that, many of us live in different countries and different regions. But we will all remember that some of us were traveling back from an ICANN meeting in Uruguay, just one year ago today, when this tragedy, which affected everyone happened. Many ICANN'ers (ph) were stuck for days and even weeks in travel limbo, and experienced great difficulties in getting in touch with loved ones who might have been traveling or living in New York or Washington D.C.
Just to remind us that we are all really together as a global community, let us join hands and form a virtual chain, fill our hearts with love and peace, and have a moment of silence.
MARILYN: Glenn (ph), thank you. I really appreciate your reminding us and offering that very heartfelt expression of regard for what all of us know as of tragedy (ph) to our world, not just to America, but to our world. Thank you for doing that.
GLENN (ph): It's a pleasure Marilyn. It's the least I had to do.
MARILYN: Let me take this back to the agenda. Your Chair may have to compose herself at some point. It's been -- it's been a hard day today for a variety of reasons, including the fact that some colleagues of mine lost members of their family. And, three of the --, the plane crashed in the Pentagon and in New York City. And I know that everyone on this call is affected just as I was by this, so. Let me turn us to agenda planning. And I think we may have had one more person join us, during the interim. If you haven't announced yourself, would you do that?
MARILYN: Well, actually, I did want you to join now, (Denise Michel) because I thought because of the agenda discussion. Thanks for joining us. So, we had talked -- I'd spoken very briefly with the taskforce about the planning of an event that was going to go on in a public forum approach in Shanghai (ph). And, Denise (ph), could I just turn this over to you to give a short update, and what the planning process is, and ...
MICHEL(ph): Yes, thanks. I'd be happy to. And thanks for the opportunity. Obviously this taskforce will be integral to this event. Stuart Lynn (ph) has asked us to organize a public session to discuss the transfer issue. The intent of this session which will take place in Shang-hi (ph), is to receive a status report, and raise the community's level of awareness of this taskforce effort on transfers. And also, educate the people who are in attendance on the fundamental issues regarding the transfer issues. And then also, to make a list of any ideas as to whether there's anything additional and practical that ICAN or one of its organization should be doing in this area.
So the intent here is to allow for a broader airing of the issues. Not to, of course, duplicate or in any way replace what the task force is doing. It's simply to raise the level of awareness of these issues, and hopefully provide some additional input to the task force's effort. So the planning committee, we have a group that will be planning the session. The planning committee consists of myself, Marilyn, Chuck Gomes(ph), Michael Palage (ph), and Thomas Roessler (ph). And, this will, this small group will only be in existence for a month, and its sole purpose is to organize a productive session that will be well balanced and thorough in its
MARILYN: Thank you. Sorry Denise (ph). I had to tell the operator to see if she could deal with our background noise.
MICHEL(ph): That's OK. Well, while I have you all on the phone, I think Marilyn may have mentioned to you, our first order of business is to grab one of the rare meeting rooms they have set aside in Shang-hi (ph), and to put this on the meeting agenda at a time that's convenient, particularly for the task forces as well as other constituency groups. So, if you have time on this call to let Marilyn know what your time and date, that would be great.
MARILYN: Let's do it, let's do it right now. So, we were looking at, we were looking at Monday evening, or Tuesday between noon and 2:00. Tuesday evening might also be a potential. The only caveat here is that ICAN has not released a reception schedule, so we aren't, it isn't clear what -- all attendees at the ICAN meeting. Marilyn: Well, can I express my preference? First of all: ... which is, I want it to ensure is that we attend the receptions-especially as organized by the host country. And I, and I'm not really being facetious. It think that one of the things that's happened to us in the past is that we have sometimes had to miss the opportunity to interact with our hosts. And I think that's a very important part of our being in another country. So, in planning this, my recommendation would be that we poll the group real quickly, and just to verify who's going to be there. And try to give you a couple of options to work with, so that you can plan just with us as one of ... So far, the people who I know are going to be there are Jeff (ph), myself, Ross (ph). Is there anyone else who is definitely going to be in Shang-hi GLENN (ph): Glenn (ph) will be there.
KEN: Oh, I'll be there. I'm sorry. I thought you wanted me to stay off the call until 2:30.
MARILYN: Oh, right. But, Ken, (ph). I was just thinking about taskforce members in this particular case.
MARILYN: Right, right, right. So I think as long as Tuesday between 12:00 and 2:00 would be sandwiched, I gather, between the G/A (ph) and the names (ph) counsel. That should be a possibility, unless Ross (ph) or Jeff (ph) would have a glitch in their time. I'm not aware that I have a conference in that time.
JEFF NEUMAN: What -- I'm sorry. What was the time again? Tuesday ...
MARILYN: It's Monday evening, Tuesday 12:00 to 2:00, between the G/A (ph) and the names (ph) counsel. And possibly Tuesday evening, realizing that the social schedule has not been confirmed by the host.
JEFF NEUMAN: Yes. I would prefer Tuesday during the day. We could do like a lunch or
ROSS (ph): No, I don't see a conflict from my end. I'm not completely aware of our constituency schedule. But, you know, so that's going to be a priority for me. But other than that, I'm fairly free.
MARILYN: Denise (ph), I would make only one other request. So, our first, our first option could be considered Tuesday during the day. But I would make one other request. And that is that we would like to -- I'll ask the participants to comment on this -- but I would like very much to be able to have dial-in, the ability to listen or Web cast or some other method, so that the rest of the taskforce can participate.
MICHEL (ph): Absolutely.
GRANT (ph): Marilyn, it's Grant (ph) here. I have one questions with regards to the timing of the meeting.
GRANT (ph): Given that it's my thought and I think will be supported by the taskforce. But, we will be at the stage of having the names (ph) counsel adopt the taskforce's recommendations. Is it important to have the meeting before or after that adoption?
MARILYN: I think that's an excellent point. And, we actually probably need to discuss that a little bit, Denise (ph). Because, I've tried to advice Stuart (ph) of that. I actually had advised him of where we thought the taskforce was.
We will have a, our draft final recommendations will be posted for comment. And, don't know the, I don't know, Grant (ph), if we are going to be able to have the taskforce adopt the recommendations, given that this further public forum is announced.
Tomorrow we will be reviewing the taskforce status with the names (ph) counsel. And, perhaps that is really a question that we should take up with them, in terms of timing. I have been assuming we would have draft final reports, and taking final comments. And then, actually, probably publish our final report, post-Shang-hi (ph), in order to take into account this round of comments that would come in through the open forum.
GRANT (ph): You know, Marilyn I -- my view is that we should be able to present final report to the names (ph) counsel at Shang-hi (ph). And that the comments and input that would be received by the forum at Shang-hi (ph) would be in addition to our report as input to the board. So going up the board would be the names (ph) counsel recommendations, and whatever comments came in through the Shang-hi (ph) public meeting to, as further input to the board, would be my thinking on time.
MARILYN: Let's hear from the taskforce on that, Grant (ph). I think that's a, that's an excellent point. So, what do we hear from the taskforce? We're going to take a queue on that. Does anyone want to comment on Grant's (ph) proposal?
ROSS (ph): You can put me in the queue Marilyn, it's Ross (ph).
MARILYN: Grant (ph), would you just restate the concern you've raised, which I think is a good point ...
GRANT (ph): Sure. I had suggested that, going forward, the time, the time that we have between now and Shang-hi (ph) to get the taskforce times (ph) completed report. And what the recommendation -- OK, I have a recommendation, and this leads to the main counsel in its Travis Bird (ph) meeting. And then, what its final report and recommendation to the names (ph) counsel at Shang-hi (ph) for adoption. That being raised as a question as to the purpose of the public meeting in Shang-hi (ph). And my suggestion is that that public meeting in Shang-hi (ph) should be to provide additional input and comment on the final recommendations from the names (ph) counsel. So the board would get both the names (ph) counsel adopted taskforce recommendations, and input, the public input on that final recommendation. So that's why my thinking is to go this (ph) way (ph).
JEFF NEUMAN: I thought, I thought there was -- when you present a final report, there needs to be a period of comment before it goes to the board. And I think it needs to be longer than just that one meeting at the, at Shang-hi (ph). So I don't think the board can get it at Shang-hi (ph), regardless of what we do. I think, I think we need public input before the final report, and public input after the final report. So, I'm not sure ...
MARILYN: Well -- yes, Jeff (ph), why don't we walk thought the schedule, and then I'll go back to the comments, that Grant (ph) has presented his suggestion.
The schedule we're on is to try to post the draft version of what we're working on now for the first round, a first round of comments. It'll be like an interim report, to post that next week. That's the schedule that we're committed to. And that's hwy we're pushing so hard to get various people to, you know, submit their piece parts, so to speak.
So the interim report should be posted next week. That would be open for -- we had talked about a two to three week period, which takes us -- let me find my calendar here again. We talked about the week of the 16th. We would be open for comments then until the first week of, the end of the first week of October, if we allow a three-week comment period. We will have had two open calls, and we've had extensive open calls and comments before, but no on this -- the document, parts of the document have been out there, but not the interim report. So that would mean the final report would need to be drafted and posted the week of the seventh of October.
JEFF NEUMAN: How do we do that? You mean, we could draft it starting the seventh, but we need some time between the end of the comment period and time to draft it.
MARILYN: Well, I don't actually think that's right, Jeff (ph). I think that the report, a large part of the report, can be drafted. And I'm gong to be drafting assignments on that. The sections about the final recommendations will have to finalized in that period of time. But if you review the requirements that we have to submit, there's no reason that most of that work can't be done, and should be underway once I make the assignments, and who will draft particular sections. Gathering the history, developing the link, documenting the outreach. Those are all things that we'll want to do in the meantime, right? So it would just be ...
JEFF NEUMAN-- my, I guess my point is that, let's say the 16th -- I'm just picking a date because I'm not looking the calendar.
JEFF NEUMAN the 16th is when we post our draft, our interim draft. Then our comments until October, what, fifth, sixth?
MARILYN: So that would be like three weeks, right?
JEFF NEUMAN: Yes, somewhere around there, right?
JEFF NEUMAN : Well then we need time to digest those comments before we draft our final recommendation.
MARILYN: OK, let me, let me -- let's just make sure that we're all on the same page. Everything except the recommendation section can be developed and drafted in the meantime. Because it's history, right? Would that make sense to you Jeff (ph)?
JEFF NEUMAN : Well, I mean, we can document some of the things like the outreach we've done, but we can't document constituency positions and ...
MARILYN: Oh, I understand,. I'm just trying say, a fair amount of the work, if you look at the outline, a fair amount of the work that needs to be done -- and I do intend to make drafting assignments to people, but it will be spread across the entire group -- a fair amount of the work will be done. It's the currency and the documenting the constituency positions, et cetera, and the outreach, the input we get on the, on the interim report that will have to be done.
MICHEL(ph): So let's ...
MARILYN: I -- but I think where Jeff (ph) is going -- and if we're looking at a calendar, it looks like we could only get the draft, final -- the draft final report posted for comment by the end of the week of the 11th or the beginning of the week of the 14th. Which means, it wouldn't have been out, Grant (ph), for long a long enough comment period.
JEFF NEUMAN : I'm sorry -- I mean, I don't mean to -- plus, we might want to chance as a taskforce to get together and discuss some of the comments from the public, and maybe change our recommendations or, you know, I don't know what we're going to get, so.
MARILYN: Well, Jeff (ph), I'm just trying to work with the calendar from your perspective, and make sure I've captured it. So I think your point, the point you were making was, the limitations of time being what they are, practically, the taskforce could expect to publish a draft final report the 14th for comment, but not expect to have -- but that the comments, but not be tasted and digested before the ICAN meeting starts on Sunday the 28th.
JEFF NEUMAN : That's right.
MARILYN: OK. That's what I was trying to capture.
ROSS (ph): Well, you know, I think, if we could jump into this point. Regardless of whether the names (ph) counsel should get the report on the third or at Shang-hi (ph), you know, there'll still be timing in terms of the meeting. It's probably, in advance of another expense question, regardless of what that schedule looks like, should probably be what we're talking about here.
MARILYN: That's the purpose of the meeting. Good point. So, why don't we -- but I think Grant's (ph) point was, the purpose of the meeting might be different, depending on what status the draft final report was in. And, what I'm going to do is suggest that you guys talk with Denise (ph) about the purpose of the meeting while I go back to the operator and see if I can fix the noise problem. And, as well, we'll see. So, Denise (ph), you're in charge of leading the discussion on the taskforce's ideas on the purpose of the meeting, OK?
MICHEL (ph): All right.
ROSS (ph): The question I had Denise (ph), I mean -- you right now ...
MICHEL(ph): I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
ROSS (ph): Yes. I'm going to get my spot in queue right now. This is Ross (ph). Basically, Grant's (ph) question, I think it really comes down to, avis (ph) had (ph) us in the document. But, if the document is out of the hands of the taskforce by that point, which I certainly hope it is, would this be then an educational meeting as to what these, what these recommendations are? A general panel that discusses some of the broad issues surrounding the policy, or is this perhaps an opportunity for the names (ph) counsel, self-seek input on these recommendations?
MICHEL (ph): Ross (ph), it could be all of the above.
MARILYN: God, I left you guys alone and I come back and all of the above sounds like a menu.
MICHEL (ph): I don't mean to be facetious, but yes, it, the session can be a general education. Second, it also can be a presentation of the taskforce's to file a report. And third, if it's scheduled before the names counsel meeting, it -- the names counsel members may also find it useful in factoring in comments for their actions on taskforce report. What do you think about that?
ROSS (ph): I was hoping for a clearer statement. I guess I can certainly see how that might be the case. You know, I would hate to be -- at that stage would be a -- we have a ...
MARILYN: Just give it a minute. I promise it'll get better.
GRANT (ph): You know, the problem is close to challenge the third time, dear?
HALLORAN (ph): I would like to take transfers for $500 please.
ROSS (ph): No. But what I was trying to say Denise (ph), is I'd hate to be in the position at the last minute that people that need to be listening aren't. And that's really going to depend on the status of the document. So, I guess what I'd request is that there'd be high level of coordination between the panel meeting or the discussion and whoever has ownership of the document at that point. I mean, that'd be the taskforce names (ph) counsel or the board.
MICHEL: OK. We can do that.
MARILYN: Denise (ph), can we, can we go back to the timing issue for just a minute? Because, it would seem to me in that case that the optimum times are either Monday evening, or Tuesday at noon, realizing that the taskforce will have limited opportunity -- excuse me, the names (ph) counsel will have limited opportunity to digest, if it's Tuesday at noon. But given the social calendar, that may be another obligation which we need to be sensitive to, that may be the only option.
MICHEL: So, is it the, is it the, is it the preference of this taskforce to definitely have this session before the names (ph) counsel meeting?
MARILYN: It would be my preference to have it before the names (ph) counsel meeting. Because I think it is difficult for the names (ph) counsel to have a informed discussion without this -- if this meeting is going to take place, then I would think it would be optimum to try to have it before the names (ph) counsel meeting. Regardless of what action the names (ph) counsel might being asked to take. But let me ask for comments from others. ROSS (ph): I concur with that Marilyn, it's Ross (ph) here.
JEFF NEUMAN This is Jeff (ph), I agree.
MARILYN: Christine (ph)? Christine (ph)?
CHRISTINE (ph): Sorry.
MARILYN: Does that make sense, does that make sense to you?
CHRISTINE (ph): Yes.
MARILYN: Grant (ph)?
GRANT (ph): Yes, that works.
MARILYN: OK. And who did I miss here? I missed Dan (ph)?
HALLORAN (ph): Hello?
MARILYN: Yes, Dan (ph), we're suggesting that since the session's gong to take place, it ought to take place before the names (ph) counsel.
HALLORAN (ph): I agree.
MARILYN: OK. Eric (ph)?
ERIC (ph): I don't know. That really don't effect me.
MARILYN: ... Just -- Eric (ph). I think we're probably being joined by --. Denise (ph), is that -- is that...
MICHELLE (ph): That's very helpful, thank you.
MARILYN: OK. Yes, I think that's as much guidance we can give you.
MICHELLE (ph): That's great -- thank you.
MARILYN: We are now at -- we've had enough people I think joined us for the open (ph) portion of the call. The one remaining item of business that I want to get to, but I'm not going to take up online time, the -- regarding -- the design of drafting and assignments for the -- for the preparation of the interim report. So I'll be communicating with people to sort of -- after we -- to put an outline out in more detail. And then ask drafting teams to take particular sections so that we can move forward. Some of this stuff we're going to be able to do even as we are completing the next two weeks of work that is gathering the historical information and documents, et cetera. But I want to move that off the agenda right now so that we can take advantage of the fact that a number of people agreed to spend some time with us today. And I'm fairly sure we've got folks on the phone. So what I'd like to do is do a roll call of who's on the call right now besides the task force. Let me remind everyone, the calls are transcribed. When you speak, please say your name and your affiliation, that should be -- and remember to do that. The transcriptionist has the names of the task force members. But it's helpful to them if you can give your name and your affiliation so that we can make sure, for purposes of the documentation, that the rest of the community is able to fit your comment to who you are. All of the transcripts will be included and attached to the reports that are forwarded so that we can be sure that we documented the comments and input that we've received.
ROSS RADER: ... just a quick question on the agenda. You also have the -- on how to proceed on the topic of the competing and complimentary dispute and -- mechanisms.
MARILYN: Yes, we should take that up -- we should take that up real quickly. I was going to leave that until the end, but we may lose it if we do that. So let me entertain a proposal on that from you and from Jeff (ph).
ROSS RADER (ph): Well, you know, I think, you know, Jeff (ph), you can -- you can bounce in here at any point, but as I mentioned in the e-mail that I circulated (ph) earlier today, there's -- in going through goals of what both the registrars and the -- are proposing at this point at it relates to the disputes/enforcements/resolution model around the policy, that there's some pretty good similarities in where we want to take this. And Dan's (ph) suggestion that was standing (ph) should probably identify what those points of similarity are.
It's struck me that rather than trying to figure out who's got the best proposal at this point, that we simply agree that they're both good, but put forward a unified document at this point.
JEFF NEUMAN : I actually agree with Ross (ph). There are a lot of similarities. And I think as we go through the policy today, we'll find this out. And I think we can -- we can bang out a pretty good compromise.
MARILYN: So maybe I could expect for -- to the group by say Monday at the latest of next week -- Friday (ph) -- get something from you and Ross to the group?
RADER (ph): Yes. Let's say (ph) -- business Monday absolutely guaranteed. But Friday doesn't seem to be out of the question at this point. If that's (ph) -- if there's a general agreement on that, I'm happy to move ahead on those dates.
MARILYN: OK. That's great. Any other items of business that the Task Force wants to raise before we go to the open portion of the call?
JEFF NEUMAN : This is Jeff (ph), can I ask a question? And it's just really on the format of the document. Ross (ph), you put out a separate document entitled, "General Obligations and Provisions"?
RADER (ph): Yes.
JEFF NEUMAN : Is that just stuff that's taken out from the whole document or is that new?
RADER (ph): Those are the -- essentially, it's a summary of things that have fallen (ph) over (ph) the document -- that has continuing (ph) conversations, conference calls, transcripts -- It's a general bucket of here are the things (ph) that we need in place in order to make sure that the policy is enforced ... So certainly, it doesn't have official standing as part of the base offering (ph) at this point. We certainly need more discussion around those points -- to be forwarded and proceed on it.
JEFF NEUMAN : OK -- I'm sorry, I missed -- just because of the background noise, and people dropping off. But you're basically saying that you basically -- you pulled this out of transcripts and from the base document to just -- like a summary or...
RADER (ph): It's the general here -- let's put it -- let's put my arms around all of these outline issues that needs to be dealt with in order to enact a policy, get them all in one place, and then we can deal with them as one document rather than 50 or 60 -- issues.
JEFF NEUMAN : So if this were like a report, you'd put this as your recommendation? More like a -- I'm trying to think of a way -- business (ph).
RADER (ph): It's certainly -- it's -- statement to the actual processes contemplated in the IRDX (ph) document. In other words, if these conditions can't be fulfilled, then you cannot execute the processes, so make sure you've got all the ingredients before you bake a cake.
JEFF NEUMAN : Is all the stuff in the actual other documents at this point?
RADER (ph): Some of it's implied, some of it's not, some of it is.
MARILYN: It's Marilyn. Can I ask you and Ross (ph) to do this particular discussion and I'll join you, if need be, and we can figure out what the -- forward. But I think the rest of the folks are going to be locked in this particular discussion.
JEFF NEUMAN :: Yes -- no, I agree. I just -- people are going to be commenting on this document and the Task Force haven't even seen it yet. Yes, I don't...
MARILYN: The Task Force hasn't seen what document yet?
JEFF NEUMAN : This document -- this new document called "General Obligations and Provisions".
MARILYN: The Task Force hasn't seen the General Obligations and Provision documents. I -- there are four documents posted -- it was posted on the 10th (ph) to this -- to the Task Force.
RADER (ph): Right.
MARILYN: This is one of the documents.
JEFF NEUMAN :): Understood. But...
JEFF NEUMAN :... that's yesterday. Oh -- it was last night.
RADER (ph): You know, just to be explicit on that point, Jeff (ph), you know (ph) these all -- all of these documents have document (ph) status (ph) attached to them. This one is pending acceptance as a proposal to the group (ph) even though it's taken from all of our prior discussions, it certainly doesn't have that same official proposal standing as the -- as the base (ph) --so it's, you know, I wouldn't expect anybody to be able to talk to it on a -- basis yet, but we need to get up to that curve.
JEFF NEUMAN : Right. So, I guess my suggestion would be let's -- if we can keep today's -- because we're going to have other open calls, if we can keep today's comments to the main base document and even -- well, even the other two have kind of been around -- and then the next call we talk about this General Obligations and Provisions document.
RADER (ph): Yes. Certainly, you know, Marilyn can, you know, she's the chair, so she can make the call. But it was my impression that we're actually -- you know, not only talk about the specific policy matters contained in the document, but -- new policy -- as it relates to trends (ph). So I'm more than happy to -- and sort of the opinion ...
MARILYN: Let's see if we can make it simple for our guests who are on the call. So why don't we start with who's on the call, and then we will start with the base document and see how we do on that. But I also want to take general topics from the people who are on the call. So apologies to you guys for the fact we've been -- keeping (ph) on your time. Can I ask you just to identify yourself, your name, and who you're with if you're not on the Task Force.
MICHEL (ph): This is Denise Michelle (ph), I'm organizing a public discussions session about the many (ph) transfers at the Shanghai -- meeting.
MARILYN: Thanks, Denise (ph).
PAUL STUHARA This is Paul (ph) -- with.
ROBERT HALL (ph): Robert Hall (ph) with ...
RICK WESSON (ph), ALICE'S REGISTRY: .
STUBBS (ph): Ken (ph).
BRUCE BECKWITH (ph),Vertisign: Hi -- Bruce (ph) Beckworth (ph) with Verisign(ph).
DAVID WASHER (ph): You've got David Washer (ph) from the Registry (ph).
MARILYN: OK. I also have on my list, Wanda Ketteman (ph), Barbara Barnes (ph), Frank Shilling (ph), Jennifer Giliam (ph)...
JENNIFER GILLIAM (ph): Here.
MARILYN: Hi, Jennifer (ph). Brandon Payne (ph), Margie Millam (ph), Rosa Thompson (ph), and Danny Younger (ph). OK. So we are missing some of the folks who are (ph) -- and hopefully, we will still get them. Why don't we go ahead and what I'm going to do is turn this over to Ross (ph) later who has been leading certainly this sort of small task force drafting effort. And we would like to walk through the primary document. But before we do that, what I'd like to do is go back around the group of attendees and ask you to make a, if you can, sort of a one-sentence statement of what you think the most pressing issue is to you or what's pressing concern is to you so that we can make sure we address that as we walk through the rest of the hour-and-a-half (ph) we have together. Denise (ph), I'm going to start with you. Anything in particular you want to raise or is there a pressing (ph) issue that you want to be sure we address?
MARILYN: OK. Rick (ph)?
WESSON (ph): Thanks, Marilyn. The one sentence (ph) is that we need a reliable process for the registrars, registrants, and registries (ph) that's all -- documented, that everyone understands their roles, relationships, and duty process. Currently, Alice's (ph) registry is not accepting transfers because the process right now is undefined, undocumented and too darn expensive. And we don't feel (ph) -- two cents over wholesale cost either so...
MARILYN: That's very helpful. Thank you, Rick (ph).
STUBBS (ph): Marilyn, did you just ask for me?
MARILYN: Yes. I was just asking if our guests wants -- if there's any particular area they'd want to highlight as something that's of particular concern to them before we just start walking through the document.
STUBBS (ph): I think to me, the most significant concern I would have is making sure that we have a process that is clearly understood by the average domain name holder. I think it's extremely important to make sure that people know how to use the system. The purpose of transfers is to allow someone who may not be currently happy with the party that's servicing their contract to move to someone who is more satisfactory for them. But at this point in time, it's so confusing to most people that there's a reluctance to do it because they really aren't certain it's going to be done in a way that assures that they won't be a stoppage or additional charges.
MARILYN: Good -- helpful. Let's just keep going. Paul (ph)?
PAUL STAHURA My biggest -- my biggest issue, I guess, would be auto (ph) -- and then my second thing, I don't know if it's appropriate for the Transfer Task Force, but I think my ultimate -- you know, most of the problems are with -- in my mind.
PAUL STAHURA: Most of the problems are with the Common Net (ph) registry, which is RRP (ph) Registry. And I believe that, you know, a lot of it would be simplified and made clearer or, you know, straightforward by switching to the EPP (ph) Registry with off (ph) codes. So my second issue would be a schedule or when would that -- when might that happen?
MARILYN: Excellent. We will -- each step will, of course, be captured in our transcripts. That's an excellent point. Let's keep going. Who else do I have?
HALL (ph): My concern would be with the apparent authority question. I believe at the -- last update, you kind of punted at that and said rather defining it, let's define who has the right to transfer. And I would be concerned of giving that right to anyone other than the registrar and ...So I think the definition of who has the right to transfer has to be very carefully nailed down to make sure it's not a third party.
MARILYN: OK. Who I've got next then? I know I've got a couple more people.
RAM MOHAN (ph), AFFILIAS REGISTRY: Marilyn, this is Ram Mohan (ph).
BECKWITH (ph): Hi, this Bruce (ph) Beckwith (ph), Marilyn. I do have a comment.
MARILYN: Great, Bruce (ph) (ph). Why don't we take you and then we'll go to Ram (ph) and I'll see if anyone else has dialed in.
BECKWITH (ph): OK. Bear Stearns position is that rather than focus on how to make this an efficient or easy process for registrars, that going to some of what Ken Studd (ph) and Rob Hall (ph) have said, we're much more interested in making sure that this a legitimate process for customers. And so our focus would be to make sure that the registrant has the ability to transfer registration but does in such -- is able to do it in a way that it is meaningful to them and there's no question about how that transfer occurred.
MARILYN: OK. Now, let's see, I have Jennifer (ph) on here and Ram (ph), I'm going to get to you. But I want to do David (ph), and Jennifer (ph), and then come back to you. Jennifer GILLIAM (ph): Just a follow up (ph) for the -- transferred.
GILLIAM (ph): Just the different problems with the -- being transferred.
MARILYN: So could you be -- delays, or confusion, or denials, is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
GILLIAM (ph): Yes.
MARILYN: OK. Good. And David (ph)?
WASCHER (ph): Yes, mine would be fairly common to what everybody else is saying. But I'm also looking for something that's enforceable that when there are problems or when things aren't being handled correctly between the registrars, that there's some governing piece of legislation, from our standpoint, that allows some recourse. Because that's been our major problem is that we can't even get certain items from the registrars when a transfer has been done wrongly, or inadvertedly, or questionable, or something like that. And then the second one would be the apparent authority. It would -- that's the other question.
JEFF NEUMAN : Marilyn, this is Jeff (ph). May I ask you a question on that? I think that's a good comment.
MARILYN: You can ask me a question, but hold on just a minute. And we have -- I think we're going to have a few questions. David (ph), say more about apparent authority and then I want to go to Rahm (ph), and then I want to take questions from the Task Force for all of you.
WASCHER (ph): OK. The apparent authority, and I understand what everybody's saying from a registrant standpoint, but from our standpoint dealing with telco's, our apparent authority is inadvertedly a third party, especially when the telco's merge, and that original administrator is gone, and the registrant only knows about a telco. So that's where I'm coming from an apparent authority standpoint.
MARILYN: So you are acting as what I would call a -- like a -- if a telco has been operating like a corporate registrar service as an intermediary?
WASCHER (ph): Basically, yes, because these are the ones that have been offering the dial up, have been offering the Web host thing, and all that kind of stuff.
MARILYN: Right -- OK. Rob (ph), and then we want to take questions from the task force for everyone.
RADER (ph) (?): Just a clarification on that, David (ph), when you're talking about governing legislation, you mean lower case (ph) G, lower case (ph) L, i.e. a higher rule, not necessarily government legislation.
WASCHER (ph): Correct, Ross (ph). I'm just talking about some committee that we will abide by as a constituency ideal so that when that committee comes down and says, why have you not produced this paperwork, there is some response.
RADER (ph): OK...the FCC (ph), right?
HALL (ph) (?): Marilyn, are you saying "Rob" or something else...
MARILYN: I was saying, "Ross". I'm going to get myself into trouble because I was making Jeff (ph) wait.
RADER (ph): I'm sorry, Jeff (ph).
MARILYN: OK. Ram (ph) and then -- who haven't I gotten? I need Ram Mohan (ph)...
HALL (ph): Marilyn, it's Rob Hall (ph), I have one other comment, too, just when you're done, if I can.
MARILYN: OK. So let's do Ram (ph), and then let's do you, and then open it up to other questions.
MOHAN (ph): Sure. This is Ram Mohan (ph) from Affiliate Registry for Dot Info (ph). One way -- I heard the conversation on apparent authority, one of the requests that has come through -- come to me directly from a few registrars is that potentially, especially in a pick (ph) registry that implements EPP (ph) to potentially find a way by which a leading (ph) registrar can supply an -- the authorization code -- the auth (ph) code, can supply that, and get a response back from the registry that says, "this is valid". And in that way, verify that the registrant who gave you that information actually gave you the correct information. So there is a mechanism there. The second point I had to make was referring to the legislation as in lower case L and to say that, you know, we've -- constituencies will abide by a higher rule. My comment there is that without the force of some sort of law behind it, enforcement becomes really tricky.
MARILYN (?): When -- but let's -- can you -- would you tell us what you mean by "law"?
MOHAN (ph): Well, if legislation is meant here as a -- as the way Ross (ph) was trying to guide (ph) it, Ross (ph) is saying it's a higher rule. It's something that we all can -- constituencies get together and say, we shall abide by this code of honor. It's hard to enforce it.
MARILYN: A code of conduct -- and since it's policy, there's consistent policy which is enforced through the accreditation agreements and contracts. Does that fit into the authority?
MOHAN (ph): Yes, that does fit in.
MARILYN: OK. I do want to -- Rob (ph)?
HALL (ph): Yes. I had one other quick comment, Marilyn... ... and I thank you for letting me go twice. I want to be very careful that we don't put into place anything that takes the human override or the human element out of it. So I realize that we deal in a very automatic world, but there are cases when you know something's wrong in a specific instance -- someone transfers, and you need the ability to stop it or to override it. And I don't want to take that last resort of a human looking at it and saying, this is wrong, away. I'm not suggesting that a human has to look at every transfer. But there are cases when we get called saying, "I don't want to do this. Stop this." And we need to be able to override it. We also have cases of certain registrars we know, you know, at this point, we should not be transferring to -- and we need the ability to stop that. And it can be a very manual process, but there needs to be some override.
MARILYN: I'm -- to hear what the last comment means, but let me open this up to the task force for questions and, Jeff (ph), you're first.
JEFF NEUMAN : OK -- thanks.
I guess it was David (ph) who kind of tacked on to what Ross (ph) was saying, and I think it was you that said it should be enforced in a meaningful way. There should be some sort of legislation. Who -- in -- and you also made mention of a committee. My question to you is who should do the enforcing? Is it Icam (ph), is it individual registry's, is it, you know, a committee that you refer to of just miscellaneous people like kind of a dispute resolution committee? That's the first question. The second question related to that is who's the appropriate party to bear the cost of such enforcement?
And then a question for Rob (ph), is you said you don't want to take the human element out, which I agree with. But how would it change if the human element was added after the actual transfer so that it was, you know, it was basically assumed that a transfer would go through and then it would be up for the losing (ph) registrar to try to pose some kind challenge after but they can't block the transfer from taking place?
MARILYN: So let me just be clear, what you're saying is there would be a recovery mechanism. Is that right?
JEFF NEUMAN: Right. There would be a human recovery mechanism after the fact. And I can go into some more about that in talking about EPP, but I'd really like to hear from David (ph) and Rob (ph).
MARILYN: Yes. Can I just ask you to clarify for all of us, when you say a "recovery", meaning that the transfer would've actually taken -- completely taken place?
JEFF NEUMAN: Right.
MARILYN: But you're envisioning a mechanism to be transferred back again?
JEFF NEUMAN: Right.
MARILYN: An appeal or some other decisional authority.
JEFF NEUMAN: Right. And before... ... yes, and before this conversation goes a little bit too far, let me also say to Rob (ph), I'm also assuming that if someone's subject to UDRP (ph) or something is -- someone hasn't paid, the registrar can always put something online (ph). So, you know, I'm talking about other situations where the apparent authority is disputed.
MARILYN: And so you had questions for David (ph) and for Rob Hall (ph), right?
JEFF NEUMAN: Yes.
WASCHER (ph): Yes, I guess where I was thinking of from that standpoint is, I would first say, let's take a look at the registries (ph) for the specific extension, let the registry come up with a way for us to be able to basically manhandle -- keep this between the registrars, allow them to set the policy that all of us would abide by. That if there was a dispute on a transfer one way or the other, that we could take it up to the registry level. They have the ability to, behind our -- I wouldn't say behind our backs, but they have the ability to move that domain name from one registrar to another.
If we can't come up with something and everybody's right about between registrars as a code of conduct is very difficult to get going. Look how long it's taking us to do our one that we haven't even completed yet. So it's got to come up from another level. I mean, the only thing I can think of at this point in time would be to go to the registry level. If they don't wan to incur the cost of what that would be, then maybe we do need to set some other governing body between the registrars that would talk to the registry, that would have some influence. It's almost similar to the UDRP type deal that would -- that could help the smaller registrars and/or the larger registrars to get the domain where they're supposed to go. If there is a problem in rectifying who the real owner is, or if it was transferred inadvertedly, that kind of stuff.
MARILYN: OK. Rob (ph), comments?
HALL (ph): I sure will and I'll try and say my last name every time because we have a Ram (ph), and Ross (ph), and Rob (ph) on the call, so it's probably confusing for everybody. It's Rob Hall (ph). My comment is the situation you proposed was, you know, regaining it back after the transfer happens. Remember that transfers are applied for and then can take five days to actually happen. There are cases where we get a call from the user who has sometimes been sent an e-mail saying, this is about to transferred, that say, "stop this, make it -- no, I don't want to go through with this." So we often know before the transfer actually takes place. While a recovery mechanism would be great, there are times when we need to be able to stop a transfer. And I never want to have to tell a client, I'm sorry, I have to approve this. You know, I don't know what you did with that other registrar, but I'm in no position to stop this by my contact. And I -- and I shutter at the word "legislation". I'm assuming Ross is talking -- Ross Rader (ph) is talking about contractual implementation of this not legislation.
RADER (ph): Yes.
HALL (ph): But the -- I shutter at me (ph) taking the absolute last resort human element out of this. So automate all of it, but give us a way to say, look, this is wrong, or something needs to be looked at more closely here. Let's just stop things until we figure out what's going on. OK.
JEFF NEUMAN: And (INAUDIBEL) I have to follow up with this.
MARILYN (?): Sure. Go ahead.
JEFF NEUMAN: ... Oh, now? OK. The follow up to David (ph), it would be -- that you'd like to take it to the individual registry level. Are you just talking about certain things that re in the contract now? For example, you know, if a gaining registrar -- registrar is not providing the documentation that the losing registrar asked for? Or are you talking about actual disputes? One registrar says there was a paying authority, the other says there's not and the registry should resolve that?
WASCHER (ph): Both cases.
JEFF NEUMAN: OK. With respect to cost, I mean, the registry view (ph) -- well, first of all, the registry view in the latter case, in the last case would be that the registry's don't want to be in a position between choosing between two registrars when they have equally good arguments. But it really doesn't have the time or the resources to engage in that kind of thing. And it doesn't want to be put in a position between it's customers. But with the former, with certain things about providing documentation, I think some registry's, I can't speak for all, but some registry's realize that that does fall within their mandate to enforce those types of requirement (ph).
With -- and with respect to Rob (ph), how -- the question I have, is how often -- because obviously, there's a lot of what people have been calling "gaming" (ph) going on at the registrar level with respect to preventing transfers by the NACK Tool. The question I have for you is, you say there are these circumstances where you have customers that say, you know, stop a transfer. I didn't mean to do what I did. How prevalent do you think that is in comparison to the other situation that we've seen where registrar's have -- just because they want to prevent a transfer? HALL (ph): I think -- let me clear about my one -- my one example. It was not, I want to stop the transfer because I didn't mean to go to this other registrar. It's more often, I don't know anything about this transfer, stop it.
So what we do see, unfortunately is, and Marilyn, I'll hopefully clarify my earlier statement here for you, is there are registrars out there whose systems are maybe not as robust to catching these and apply for transfers. And there have been cases where we have simply said, we will not allow a transfer to this registrar until they clean up their systems. Now, I'm thankful to report that in the one bad case we had of this, the registrar wasn't aware of it. We were able to fix their systems, close the loophole, and we now allow transfer to them again. But, you know, on an individual basis, it's often a phone call from a customer saying, I've gotten your e-mail about this being transferred away. I didn't do this. Stop this. And that, we need to be able to respond to, not in an automated fashion, but on a one off (ph) because we've got a frustrated client who's trying to undo something.
You know, I would have to say it's pretty rare. I don't know if we've ever heard of the case of, oh, yes, I went to another registrar. I paid for it, I applied to transfer, and now I want you to stop it. That we haven't seen. And, you know, we're talking about the vast minority. You know, I would probably say below one or two percent of the cases. I'm worried about putting something into place that binds us, that we're powerless.
JEFF NEUMAN: Right. Well, and this is Jeff (ph), I'm actually very sympathetic to that. I'm just, you know, as a task force, we're trying to figure out what we can -- you know, we're trying to figure out the best solution for the most amount of people.
HALL (ph): I absolutely agree. I'm just trying to say, remember that there are one offs (ph) that we need to deal with, and there has to be a way to deal with that. It may be a totally manual process where registrars need to talk with the registry, et cetera, et cetera. But don't bind us to something we can't deal with the small percentage of people that are a real problem in our -- in the back (ph) ...
MARILYN: I think, Rob (ph), if I would describe -- I would capture that under a category of there would be some exceptions, and there needs to be a process and a knowledge process for how to deal with exceptions.
HALL (ph): That would be perfect, Marilyn.
RADER (ph): Well, I'm thinking of a follow up question for you. It's ... Marilyn, if I can just get into -- would that be good?
MARILYN (?): Sure. Let me -- let me just see who else wants to speak. We know you do, that would be Ross Rader (ph). Who else?
JEFF NEUMAN: Marilyn -- comment?
DAN STEINBERG: Dan (ph), too.
MARILYN: Dan, all right.
DAN STEINBERG: I'll be last. Somebody else (INAUDIBLE).
MARILYN: Anyone else?
WASCHER (ph): Go ahead and put me on the list. This is David (ph) again.
MARILYN: Good. So let's start with Ross (ph), we'll do Grant (ph), we'll do Dan, and then we'll do David (ph) again.
RADER (ph): OK. Well, just -- if the -- if there was a facility (ph) available whereby, you know, transfer us (ph) from Registrar A to Registrar B against the wishes of the registrar. And if there was a process in place whereby the registrar would incur no cost, it would lose their resolution. And you wouldn't be able to get the name back quickly. Would that diminish that concern or would that concern still be big in your mind?
HALL (ph): I think that would be a good step forward to say I can get the domain back on behalf of client or Registrar A on behalf of my client. I don't know how you would say that there's no diminishing of service if -- to the time it's in Registrar B and it would be an S (ph) service, for example, could be changed. And I would never want to be able -- to have to be on the phone telling a client that yes, the domain was a client for a transfer today, and in four days it's going to that other registrar. Sure, there's a way to get back, but I can't stop this process. And I think Marilyn's hit the head on the -- the nail on the head is this is -- these are exceptional type circumstances. I just wanted everybody to be aware that they do exist and they do happen, you know, almost on a daily basis. Ross (ph), I think in one of your e-mails, you said that you were dealing with about 100 cases of transfers that were exceptional type circumstances at any given time. So getting a domain back is not as good as a resolution as stopping what's wrong before you see it.
RADER (ph) (?): Yes. And I guess, you know, my question -- you know a) to what degree is this enforcement issue, and b) to what degree are the exceptions really, you know, as opposed to part of the default standard operating procedure. So, thanks.
HALL (ph): You're welcome. And I would -- you cleverly said, "no cost to the registrant", I'm assuming you mean the registrar as well?
RADER (ph): Oh, absolutely -- yes.
HALL (ph): OK. Now does that also mean that the task force is contemplating backing out the two years it would be added by transferring away and back?
JEFF NEUMAN: Rob (ph), is that no cost to the registry?
HALL (ph): Well, these are issues I'm not sure you have answers for. But, you know, there is a cost to the -- both the registry and the -- well, actually, there is a cost just for the registrar for a domain that is transferred to Registrar B and then back to A. One would have lost revenue from that client for those two years because now they've got a domain at the registry that has been extended by two years and they've done nothing. So the registry does lose the revenue from that domain.
RADER (ph) (?): As a matter (ph) of -- currently, right.
HALL (ph): Right. So, it would be, you know, easy a game of system of transfer to Registrar B and then I'd phone A and say, I didn't mean to, and I get two years out of my domain. So keep that in mind, too.
RADER (ph) (?): OK.
MARILYN: Apples to apples.
RADER (ph) (?): ... business plan, but anyway.
GRANT (ph): I guess I have a question first for this discussion. If we acknowledge that the situation that's being discussed here is a minority, and I think it's one of those -- it may well be one of those situations (ph) of (ph) balance (ph), and my question to the registrars is which sort of action do we see more of? An action whereby someone mistakenly loses -- mistakenly initiates a transfer process whereby they want -- and subsequently, they wish to stop it in the tracks? Or a situation where someone else transfers it away from it? In other words, let's get some perspective here as to which -- what's the main problem we need to protect? And if there are, you know, consequence of that, a weakening process for some other situation, then dependent upon which one we come across more, we may have to accept that weakness.
Having said that, looking through the process that we have outlined in the paper, there is two times that the registering will be -- or given an opportunity to confirm the transcript. One, by the gaining registrar and one b the losing registrar. So if the losing registrar seeks confirmation from the registrant. And at that stage (ph), the registrant decides that for whatever reason, the transfer -- he does not wish the transfer to proceed, then the registrant -- at that stage, pull the ...Then does that not cover the situation that you're outlining here?
HALL (ph): This is Rob (ph) -- and yes, I agree, it does. It should be a footnote. I didn't mean to make this the primary issue. So my initial comment was the apparent (ph) authority really is where I was more concerned. I just wanted to place this as a footnote. I think it's been discussed probably way too much for this call.
HALL (ph): Sure.
MARILYN: Are you -- now, Grant (ph), does that help? I would've basically said I felt -- I think there's actually three -- is a mistakenly initiate that wants to back away from it. There's a, what we call, the -- and then there's the other issue, which we think should be the majority of problems we're trying to solve with having a standard I's (ph) and accepted adhere to transfer policy and that is, someone has -- there is a request for a transfer. It is being questioned by the other registrar and so there's delay, et cetera. And the registrant is in the meantime, everyone is sort of caught in -- because there's not a clear topic that decides what should happen and then an appeals process. And I think we thought that most of the problems we would be addressing fall in the third category, recognizing that there are some -- instances but hoping that they -- if we can identify, that those would be addressed by these formal processes as well. We had Dan and we had David (ph) who both were going to comments. Dan?
DAN STEINBERG: OK, Dan (ph) is here. I managed to stay on the call so far and not get dropped off. As usual, Grant (ph) says everything I want to say before I say it. I just wanted to put myself in the queue (ph), but I'm still looking for sort of ideas (ph)...
JEFF NEUMAN: I'm sorry. I can't hear who's speaking. Could you speak much louder, please?
DAN STEINBERG: OK. I'll give it my best shot. I put myself in the queue, because I'm trying to get still an idea of scale and scope of these problems that Grant was asking. What's more important? People -- the system, people making mistakes -- I would -- I think we were talking about perhaps the need for intervening some sort of what they call -- legislation. And I always like to keep balanced the need for legislation with a perceived harm of who's getting harmed and what is the level of that harm?
So can somebody give me an idea of just how prevalent all these problems are?
MARILYN: So what do we hear from some of the folks on the call like David (ph), and maybe Jennifer (ph), Bruce (ph) (ph), Paul (ph), Rob (ph) and we know -- we're not asking you for an absolute count, but what's your view?
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Marilyn, this is Christine (ph), I'd be happy to speak to that from a registry standpoint.
MARILYN: Thanks, Christine (ph). you want to start?
CHRISTINE RUSSO Oh -- OK. Sorry. I didn't mean to cut anyone off. But let me first say that I think all the issues are -- well, I would like to think all the issues are exceptions, because we have to remember that there are millions and millions of -- out there and millions of successful transfers. But from a registry perspective and being in the compliance office, judging by the complaints I get, boy, I just have to say that I don't think any one of those problems is prevalent than the other. I absolutely think that I get an equal balance of each of the problems we've just outlined.
CHRISTINE RUSSO This is coming from I'll just say, my registry of customers.
DAN STEINBERG: Can you give me an idea of just how much this is -- the percentage of the total number of (INAUDIBLE)?
CHRISTINE RUSSO You know, I can't because like I say, people don't always -- how can I say this? There are many more problems out there that don't get reported I'm sure than do. So, you know, I couldn't really give you a valid number.
JEFF NEUMAN: I can give a number for, you know, not -- is and Value S (ph) actually, which is not -- well, I can't (ph), but just to give you an idea. It hasn't been a problem with our -- with the EPP registries we have. None of this, actually. We've had thousands of transfers and not -- and we've had three total knacks (ph) out of those thousands. And those knacks (ph) were for legitimate reasons of not payment, or there was a UDRP, or something like that.
PAUL STAHURA: That doesn't mean there's no problems, because they're problems that occur before the request is transmitted to the EPP registry. For example, a registrar might not be giving out the authorization codes.
JEFF NEUMAN: Right. Paul (ph), I was actually getting into that. But those problems that were mentioned were at least non-existent in the biz (ph) in U.S. But you're right. There are other issues, which we go into in the paper -- in the -- in the base paper about some issues that you arise. And we kind of put in some best practices about getting the auth (ph) code out.
MARILYN: And let me do something for the transcriptionist. That was Jeff Neuman (ph) who commented about .US.biz (ph) and who was it that was the last comments (ph) before Jeff (ph) responded? Was that Paul (ph)?
PAUL STAHURA: I interrupted. But I think you were talking about Christine Russo's MARILYN: No, I have Christine (ph). I just wanted to be sure that the...
PAUL STAHURA: It was me.
MARILYN: That's Paul . Thank you. We have Dan. Is that it or do you want to raise anything else? I wonder if we shouldn't hear from some of the other folks, like Jennifer (ph) or David (ph) in response to Dan's question about what do you think about the scope and scale?
GILLIAM (ph): This is Jennifer (ph). I'm on the side. I'm actually working for the telephone company that helps the customers register their domains and put in, you know, for their transfers. And I'd say about a third of the transfers that, you know, go through, go through with the problems and the other two-thirds go through funds. But we've just seen a lot of -- the transfers that we put through have to be put in four, and five, six times before, you know, anything's responded to on them.
MARILYN: OK. Anyone else want to comment?
JEFF NEUMAN:... just to follow up.
JEFF NEUMAN Are you, Jennifer (ph), you don't -- I don't want to know which registrars, but do you generally do it through one registrar or through multiple registrar's? Just to get an idea.
GILLIAM (ph): Through one.
JEFF NEUMAN OK. You have a relationship with one registrar. OK.
WASCHER (ph): This is David (ph), I would say probably a good 30 percent overall of the transfers are denied, or either no response, or there is absolutely nothing sent to the registrant and/or the -- to the administrator. So we end up having to put them back -- either automatically or tell the registrant to go and review whatever the problems are and/or get in contact with the previous registrar and work out with them what the problem is.
MARILYN: David (ph), can I -- I need to ask you a question about that. Nothing sent to the registrant, does that mean that the registrant may have inaccurate -- data or there's a gap, there's some inaccuracy on how they should be contacted?
WASCHER (ph): I think it's a little of both actually. Mostly it's because of inaccurate who is (ph) data. But you have to keep in mind that from our standpoint, the registrant went and got a -- they didn't ask necessarily for a domain name. They asked for a website.
WASHER (ph): And when they got the Web site, they got a domain name. And they don't correlate one without the other.
WASCHER (ph): They -- know one type of entity. So when they get this response, more than likely, they don't understand what it is because they've never dealt with the domain name. So it becomes -- and they may not have even updated their who is (ph) data. From our standpoint, from a telco standpoint dealing with multiple telcos across the United States, if one were to be swapped over from one ISP to another ISP, the domain names don't necessarily get updated, that's the last thing on their mind. And all the e-mails will change.
MARILYN: Yes. Ken (ph), are you still on the phone? Ken Stubbs? This is an area that we are dealing with in the Who Is (ph) Task Force as a -- one of the reasons that a lot of the data is inaccurate is what I call "agents". And it's not on the mind of the registrant. They -- you described very clearly one of the problems that we're seeing there. So the 30 percent that are denied, Ken (ph) and I -- could I -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth or in Jennifer's (ph), but do I assess that this is a big customer satisfaction issue?
WASHER (ph): Very much so.
PAUL STAHURA: Marilyn, I have a comment as well. If -- regarding the who is and transfers, I don't know if it's appropriate to address it in the transfer sense (ph) portion of it. Who is -- where? But after transfer completes and the losing registrar needs to get the who is information from the gaining registrar, there's problems with that, because -- registrar sent (ph) different formats for the who is output. And in fact, you know -- changed the format on the fly for certain other reasons.
But we don't want to, you know, screw up the who is -- the transfer. For example, if we lose a name, we want to make sure that the who is information gets to the gaining registrar accurately and on time (ph). So that should be -- that's another problem that needs to be addressed. After the transfer happens, what about the who is information? How can I get it or give it? Should we have XML format or what? And maybe the new who is specification can help us on that.
MARILYN: Paul (ph), I might as you in particular and any others who are interested in this issue to note that the Who Is Task Force will also have a draft report out relatively soon, and that we are also very interested in outreach from that taskforce. So when you see that notice, maybe we could make sure that some of you could participate in a conversation with the Who Is Task Force on this issue.
PAUL STAHURA I have another comment about David's (ph) comment. And that we also experienced a lot of -- I don't know the percent, but I would say it's over 30 percent, where we think we have the, you know, the authority from the registrant (ph) to initiate the transfer. And then we initiate the transfer and it's denied by the losing registrar. And then the registrant calls up and says, I really want to transfer it. I talked to the losing registrar, they won't let it go, and we keep initiating it over and over and over -- multiple times to try to get the name to come over. And I think that's -- in my mind, that's a big problem for ...
MARILYN: Seeing that in the postings that -- I'm trying to think of his name now, but there's a -- the gentlemen who has been posting to the task force about several complaints about the same nature. And that would sound to me, Paul (ph), like the issue there is there's no place to appeal. There's no process to say, look, I followed the checklist. The name is not being released. What's the appeal process to resolve it to the satisfaction of the registrant, that they end up with the registrar they're looking for. PAUL STAHURA: Right.
MARILYN: Did I -- did, David (ph), is there -- let me just go back to you. Is there anything final that you want to say before we kind of press (ph) on?
WASCHER (ph): I wanted to readdress the issue that Jeff (ph) has brought when I was commenting about some type of registry authority. And I wanted to give you and Jeff (ph) both a real specific case to help with my point. And that is a domain name called Meta (ph) Life -- LIFE.com (ph) that we had. And at one point in time, it got transferred in network (ph) solutions. At the time it got transferred, it was given to another company called Meta (ph) File -- FILE, who is data shows Meta (ph) Life, which is incorrect, and their e-mail address for the administrator is email@example.com (ph).
Now the registrant that I had, had registered it -- if you look at my who is on registry.com, shows that it was registered for seven years. Even though I have gone repeatedly in the last year to try to get the appropriate documentation that the -- that we are supposed to be able to get as a losing registrar, I never got it after a year. The registrant has called this company and found out that it is -- they didn't even know that they had the domain name.
So, Jeff (ph), that's where I'm coming from is that we are at a standstill. I get no response from anybody about this specific domain, so where else do you go to? You can't go to ICANN because they're not going to do anything about it. And the registrant has totally lost his name, it is not in his name anymore, so he has absolutely no recourse to get this domain name back.
JEFF NEUMAN :OK. Let me ask you a question, this is Jeff. your complaint -- I mean obviously from the merit, from the merit that your complaint is that you need -- you'd like to go to registry because you haven't gotten any documentation about the losing registrar?
WASCHER (ph): Correct.
JEFF NEUMAN: OK. But as far as the actual dispute, even if the -- like lets say the registry steps in and forces the registrar -- the losing registrar to present the documentation, at that point as the documentation is presented, then who -- then who hears this dispute?
WASCHER (ph): Well, I guess that's the other piece. That would have to be determined from the task force is when there is something like this, how does it get resolved? I don't think anybody knows.
MARILYN: And let me just clarify, David (ph), I think in this case, you were the losing registrar, is that not right?
WASCHER (ph): Correct.
MARILYN: Yes, right. I want to be sure, Jeff (ph), that that was -- well, any...
STUBBS (ph): ... this is Ken Stubbs. Can you put me into queue on this specifically (ph)?
MARILYN: Sure, I certainly can. And I hear someone else earlier. I didn't mean to cut them off.
HALL (ph): Marilyn, this is Rob (ph). I wanted to talk to it as well.
MARILYN: Oh, good. Well, let me put Rob (ph), because I heard you first. So you and then Ken (ph).
HALL (ph): OK. I hate to regress, I was mocking (ph) the old issue. There's another reason we see that I don't think has been talked about other than just a registrant not wanting their domain transfer, is we see a lot of fraud going on where domains are being stolen. I think that's what the gentlemen was just talking about is a stolen domain. We have sent out over 200 requests for proof of transfer to different transfers in the last year. I have not ever seen one come back to me saying, here's the proof. So, whatever solution we've put in place, whether the registry mandates that, or what have you, that's go to be some mechanism that we agree on what the proof is and timely delivery of it.
MARILYN: Ken (ph), are you commenting on this issue or...
STUBBS: Well, there's a couple of things. First of all, what we have to decide working with ICANN and the registry is whether or not adherent to this specific -- that the specific criteria is a requirement under the registry/registrar contractual relationship or whether or not the adherence is a requirement under the ICANN Accreditation Agreement. That will pretty well mandate where the -- what -- under what jurisdiction the resolution is providing.
And I think if we can't establish that from the very beginning, we're going to run into a very serious problem down the road because if I was the registry, I would say, now, well wait a minute. Compliance there is an obligation to have under the Accreditation Agreement with ICANN, and I don't feel that I should provide resources to ensure that you're complying with the ICANN accreditation requirements. So I think this is an issue that really needs to get resolved. Thank you.
MARILYN: Can I offer a user perspective and ask people to comment on it? And I usually do not comment as the chair, but I'd like to, at this point, comment about something that concerns me as a user. And David (ph), we act as a corporate registrar who facilitates the registration of our corporate customers, but we don't actually -- and we have a relationship with a particular large registrar to do that. We also register our own domain names and then we have an ISP who also facilitates registration for their ISP customers. So we have sort of a business ISP, and a dial up ISP, and a broadband ISP.
But as the business user, that's the hat I'd like to wear for just a minute, we are -- we would be concerned about seeing different processes and procedures across the different GTLVs (ph). So if that makes sense to anyone -- although some people thought that innovation could take place at the registry level in terms of what the -- whether there was -- theory (ph). And there was something else, the saying (ph) that the well-known branch (ph) holders, the companies that we were a part of didn't actually like the differences, because it caused confusion internally to the staff who had to interact with customers who were trying to do the registration for the corporate employer. And I just wanted to ask you guys a question, David (ph), and Jennifer (ph) in particular, and maybe Rob (ph) and others, what your view is about if I could call it, "standardization across the <">-- of processes across the gTLD (ph) registry?
WASCHER (ph): This is David (ph), as far as from the registrar to the registry, yes, the standard should be in such a way so that we can all communicate correctly. From a registrant to a registrar, I think the EPP has somewhat standardized that aspect by having to have the key for the -- for somebody to come in and do -- and to do a transfer. But I also think that partly the registrar's, their business case also kind of handles how they will do the transfer. If they have a complicated process for doing it, then maybe the registrant doesn't want to deal with that. But from a corporate standpoint, that process is probably more secure, has special features in it that they need from a corporate standpoint. So I think it -- you almost got to kind of blend it between the two business cases.
MARILYN: Yes, I was focused more on standardization at the -- not between the registry and registrar, but if we ended up recommending a appeals process or UDRP like process or something of that nature, that I believe business users would prefer to see a single solution applied. So I think it would be complicated to have all this -- if the registry does it and the dot-biz (ph), dot-info (ph), dot-museum (ph) that the registry doesn't do it and the dot-com (ph), dot-coop (ph), that that's what I mean about being confusing.
WASCHER (ph): Yes, I would -- I would agree to that. That some form of standard between the two, because we definitely see that transfers from one registrar can't be done X amount of days before expiration, some can be done after expiration, and it's made it to a point where registrant doesn't even know when to even begin to do a transfer. So some type of standard process from a high level could be established so that they at least know what is going on.
MARILYN: Denise (ph), are you still on the phone?
MICHEL: Yes, I'm here.
MARILYN: Can I sort of put you on the spot and ask you to kind of speculate about that issue of -- sort of -- maybe I should call it "consistency", maybe instead of standardization because that really may mean something else. But could I ask you to comment about your thoughts about consistency in terms of processes from a registrant point of view?
MICHELLE (ph): Well, speaking personally and not as the person organizing the transfer session (ph), from my own experience as an individual registrant, consistency and standardization is good obviously. If simpler and more streamline, you can make it for your individual customers, the easier it is for us to use the system.
JEFF NEUMAN Can I jump into queue.
MARILYN: Yes, I'd love for people to. I'd really would love for people to comment on that side. So Jeff (ph), I've got you and I don't know -- Jennifer (ph), if you wanted to comment first before we went to Jeff (ph)?
GILLIAM (ph): No, I agree with what Dave was saying.
MARILYN: Jeff (ph), you're on.
JEFF NEUMAN: Oh -- OK. I mean, I would generally agree with everyone that standardization is really good. But people -- we also have to realize that for let's say for VeriSign registry to implement an EPP solution at this point in time would be extremely costly. And, you know, although they've committed this at some point in the future without EPP (ph), you know, we can't expect this to happen over night. And so what people need to consider is that registry's are by their nature different. And so, while to the extent we can standardize things like possibly between Biz (ph) and Info (ph) and other EPP registry's, we have to also recognize that other registry's will have different systems and we'll have to find a way to deal with that.
MARILYN: Jeff (ph), I have...
RADER (ph): ... Jeff (ph).
JEFF NEUMAN: I'm sorry?
RADER (ph): I just had a question for you. I was going to ask Marilyn to put me into queue.
MARILYN: Sure, I will. I have a question for you, though, Jeff (ph). I have to tell you that your answer doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense to me as it applies to the question I was asking. Although I think it made sense in a broader (ph) perspective. But I think my question was more about standard timeframes, and I think you were -- you were going to the broader issue for -- total standardization? Yes, so -- then I take it from your response that you said that there would be some areas where standardization could work in the areas of standard timeframes or other kinds of things that you could see some merit in that.
JEFF NEUMAN :Well, I think timeframes is one of those that can be standardized, and I think they already are standardized, at least it's -- between -- in a registry/registrar (ph) agreement, timeframes are standardized. Everything else as far as EPP, authcode (ph), different ways of establishing apparent (ph) authority, that at this point is not standardized.
MARILYN: I'm under the impression that having received some of these notices from various people whom I no longer have a relationship with advising me that I'm going to lose my domain name from them if I don't immediately take action with them, that in fact, there are some situations where registrars don't let a name be transferred like 30 days prior to it's expiration or some period like that.
MARILYN (?): Those are registrar rules, those aren't registry rules.
RADER (ph) (?): Right. But that's what she was asking for was what is the registrant and the registrar type of standardization?
JEFF NEUMAN: OK. And I think that's right. I think that I also heard -- and I also heard Marilyn say that, you know, there's differences between dot-coop (ph) and dot-com, and stuff...
MARILYN: Right, the two-part question and that would be like if there a appeals process, or a UDRP (ph), or something like that that were put in place, from a user perspective that I think there would be some -- unhappiness about having it being handled differently gTLDs For those of us who have to register in multiple gTLDs (ph), we have no choice because we have to defend our mark (ph) or we need to register because we need to do business under that name and in that gTLD (ph). I was just suggesting that having a different fix it process in one gTLD verses another, might be viewed by some as differentiation. I believe business users would think of it as confusion. That was my point there, Jeff (ph). And I just wondered how people felt about them, and I think we got into a more granular discussion. But I had Ross who wanted to make a comment, and then I want to actually go to the document, if we can, quickly.
RADER (ph): Yes, just simply I was going to address similar distinctions between standardization policy between registrars, and registry's, and registrants and standardization of technology or implementation of that policy. So there's, you know, there's some -- there's various dimensions and we shouldn't forget what we were talking about of -- standardization.
MARILYN: Any last comment on this issue before we actually turn to the primary document? No, you've got 20 minutes and I think it could be well spent here. This has been extremely helpful. I don't know how the rest of the task force feels about this, but this is the kind of dialogue that we're really interested in having with people who are in the trenches. So, could I, Ross (ph), turn this to you?
RADER (ph): You may indeed. I'd also like to mirror (ph) Marilyn's thanks to our guests today. It's certainly, you know, it's always good to know when we're moving in the direction, but we need to explore further other sorts of things. So it's good to have, you know -- base propositions, at least for me, as a registrar reaffirment (ph) and continue to push this down that right track. So to the document now, the base -- there's really four documents in the bundle that I sent out, I guess it was yesterday now. Let me just pull up your names here.
HALL (ph) (?): And where did you send the note to, Ross (ph)?
RADER (ph): This was to the Transfer Task Force yesterday.
HALL (ph) (?): So we're being asked to comment on documents that we haven't seen?
MARILYN: Rob (ph), the documents were posted to the Transfer Task Force and I guess I thought -- and I apologize about this, but we -- because we had asked folks in notifying you about the call, and maybe we weren't clear that in addition to talking to you, we also wanted -- to get input on the documents.
They are posted on the Transfer Task Force and we obviously can't expect you to comment in detail because you haven't had a chance to read them. But I thought what we'd would have Ross do is kind of overview the documents for you just at a very high level. And that would then give people time to look at the documents, and perhaps, come back to us with more comments.
HALL (ph): So we'll get a copy of them soon, Marilyn is what you're saying or...
RADER (ph): Maybe I just could jump in on that, Rob (ph). The documents that we're talking about today are evolutions of the document that we've been sharing with the constituency on, I guess, a -- couple of weeks or so. So the base document here that we'll be discussing today is -- call, a slightly more narrowed down version of the one received last week. But there's no new principles or anything like that.
JEFF NEUMAN: let me also jump in, Rob (ph), and everyone on this call. The mailing list is an open mailing list. So it should be probably available if you go through the DNSO (ph) site.
HALL (ph): Got it. I didn't understand that. Thank you. So I'll pick it up there? Can I also ask Marilyn just a quick question, you said this call is being recorded and transcribed. Are those available publicly and if...
HALL (ph): ... and if so, how soon afterwards?
MARILYN: They're posted and normally, they're available three days...
HALL (ph): I heard you say they'd be included in your final report. I wasn't sure...
MARILYN: Yes. No, and there's -- and there's, Rob (ph), there's, I think, three weeks worth of transcripts up there right now.
HALL (ph): Great, thank you.
RADER (ph): Yes, for anybody that wants to paint (ph) by numbers as we -- as we go through these documents, if you go to DNSO.org (ph) and click on mailing lists, then click on names council archives, and then click on names council transfer, that'll bring you to the Transfer Task Force mailing lists archive.
So it's a good document. There's four documents that were issued this week. What we've done that's different from the last one that was more widely distributed is take the core proposal that we've been batting back and forth, and really break it into three broad sections. One is the core processes that include the drafting principles, the processes (INAUDIBLE). That haven't really changed. These (ph) -- but not significantly would be the best way to characterize that.
Over the last two weeks -- three weeks leading up to this call, there's been some -- there's been a lot of discussion around the concept of enforcement arbitration and those sorts of -- those sorts of issues. So what we've done there is there's now two proposals on this list. One from the registry constituency and one from the registrar constituency that were included in the draft bundle that went out yesterday. Those still need further work, so they're not fully -- I would say, they're not maturely at this point for what's been reviewed. It looks like we've tried and reconciled the differences in those documents into one unified document, which would then get drafted back into the base document.
And the fourth component is the general provision, it's the general obligation (ph) and provisions which are a run down of the basic conditions that must be met in order that everything else makes sense. So today we'll run through the base document. Excuse me. This broke into really four broad areas. There's the statement of issues, similar issues as more of a note from the Transcript Team, and then the Task Force, at this point, which is -- heads up -- what we need to focus on during the next round of drafting or the next round of teleconferencing. We have the principles by which this document has been drafted. And then we get into the specific processes -- gaining and losing registrars and that's the -- essentially (ph).
So running through, starting on page four of this document, we get to the outstanding issues. Two of the big things that are outstanding right now is a) the enforcement model (ph), those are addressed through the two drafts that were -- by registry's and registrar's this week. The second big issue which -- what form, or what -- how should -- what should a standard authorization form look like? What information should it contain? What media format should it be available in? Are there any other issues around that that we haven't discovered? That's certainly up for grabs for discussion within the task force, and certainly, if anybody has any comments on that.
Moving on to the principles, the general principles of the document, they really try and outline not only the basic philosophical points, we've tried to into account when the -- throughout the evolution of this document, starting with when -- registrar constituency position paper, and up through the status of -- as a Task Force drafting document. But in a lot of cases, it also -- to what are the principles that registrar's, registry's, or registrants must -- in order to effectively implement or initiate the processes that are described in the document.
Now is there any interest -- I know we're dealing with very limited time, is there interest in going through both the principles and the processes to any very fine degree? Or should I open it up to questions? Or what's the general feeling as to how we should go through this? No opinions.
HALL (ph): Ross, it's Rob (ph), one of my main concerns was the -- how you've handled the apparent authority questions. Do you want to detail that one maybe? I think a couple of others mentioned it earlier in the call.
RADER (ph): Apparent authority...
HALL (ph): Or who can apply for a transfer as opposed to the apparent authority person?
MARILYN: Yes, can I, Bob, I think we need to mention the fact that this is sort of still work in progress within the Task Force. And different opinions exist about it because we really didn't talk about it.
RADER (ph): Yes, I'm just -- let's check and see if the question of apparent authority is addressed specifically in this document or whether it's been moved up to the general provision. So I want to make sure I'm on the right page first.
I believe that that section covered -- that's been moved up to the general provision.
RADER (ph): So to just answer the question broadly -- the drafts, which are now at varying levels of status within the task force. And certainly -- picked up before the public portion of the call started was that apparent authority is really limited to three pretty specific groups. In the case of EPP based registry's, the bearer of the authorization information code, or the auth (ph) code be the person of the apparent authority, as we know today.
The second two groups really are EPP specific, which would be the administrative contact or the registrant. Now in all cases, it's not so much question who has the apparent authority anymore as we know it under the current contracts, but certainly a trend towards who is specifically authorized to request the transcript. Or not even to request the transfer, but to approve a transfer on behalf of the registrar.
RICK WESSON: Ross (ph), this is Rick Wesson (ph), has the Transcript Task Force taken any steps to enumerate what each contact should be used for, or, you know drive any direction into that?
RADER (ph): What we've done actually, Marcus Hayden (ph) and I are working on a supplement to these documents, which can be seen (ph) on page 15, which describes the broad set of definitions. And you'd see that document before. That was the one that we've -- we started to introduce in the EPP working group. Now -- here. But it essentially describes what the rules are as it relates to registrants, admission contract (ph), billing contact. It goes on to say who the domain name holder is with the ...So in a broad sense, I would answer that question, yes.
RICK WESSON: Is that document available anymore?
RADER (ph): It's actually -- starting on page 15 of the base document.
MARILYN: And it is very much I think sort of work in progress that we could use more info on. The other thing we're struggling with is -- and I think the task force is not -- has made no conclusion on this, if it is not an EPP -- and it's a question, if it is not an EPP registry, should there be -- guidance? So you would say, it is only the administrative contact, or the registrant, or should there be some guidance on -- else might be acceptable or accepted as demonstrating apparent authority, or do we leave it up to each registrar to establish their own list of Apparent authority. And Christine (ph) is working on a -- she, and Dan, and David (ph), right, Christine (ph)?
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Right.
MARILYN: Could you just describe that drafting project that you're working on?
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Well, what we were doing is coming up with a list of names of delegating the identity of an individual claiming to have apparent authority.
MARILYN: I think you need to say a couple of more sentences. But that was very high level -- may be mysterious.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Do you want me to go through the list as it exists so far?
MARILYN: Yes, would you? Just some examples.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Sure. Notarized statements, drivers license, passed articles of incorporation in case of a corporate registrant, military ID, state of government issued ID, birth certificate, electronic signatures -- of design (ph) -- obviously these are all physical forms. And then an e-mail address matching that -- losing registrar's who is database with the electronic form. That's pretty much where the list stands.
MARILYN: And go back again the purpose for doing this. Why...
CHRISTINE RUSSO: The purpose of doing this is to provide guidelines for gaining a registrar to validate the identity of an individual claiming to be the registrant or admin contact.
MARILYN (?): Comments on that from anyone? I think it'd be a very useful document.
JEFF NEUMAN: One of the problems is that registrars never add anything to draw on for all of this, and they just did whatever they felt was appropriate.
HALL (ph): Would it be just -- to the list?
CHRISTINE RUSSO: No, and that's what I was going to add. Is this is an exhausted list and we'd really just be a guideline.
HALL (ph): Because all the ones you mentioned were -- it's hard to automate that. But...
CHRISTINE RUSSO: These would come into play in a couple of instances. Let's say that there's no...
HALL (ph): No e-mail address, or no phone number, or who knows what?
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Exactly.
HALL (ph): Those (ph) cases, I'm with you.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: These would be ultimate forms of means for identifying who the person is.
MARILYN: And I'll tell you guys that this sort of started out originally from a complaint that I got because in one case, a corporation was asked for a notarized statement because I guess there was an assumption that corporations have notaries standing around with nothing to do. The second request was that a corporate -- a -- fax in a drivers license and a state picture ID -- requested specifically state drivers license. And the state drivers licenses uses the social security -- that the U.S. drivers license uses the social security number. And the corporate employee was quite concerned. There was no ill-intent on the part of the registrar by any means, but there was, you know, so we felt that -- I agree with Rick (ph). There was no guidance, and there was no, you know, idea of when this kind of thing would be requested, and if there were other alternatives. So we're working on that and it'll be an appendices. I think we're thinking to take more comment on it. And I think we're going to need a lot more comment and thought on it. This does mean that the registrars, of course, are gathering additional information, which has personally identifiable information in it. But you guys have to gather that anyway if you do -- if you take billing information. And if you say, who is this?
HALL (ph) (?): We've -- in certain, primarily -- just FYI, in certain cases we do accept -- like if you have a phone fax or a copy of your passport, and then we'll by hand match that up with the who is information, and if it matches, we'll send the -- to the registrar. Then the losing registrar will send out an e-mail -- or attempt to send out an e-mail to the -- the who is and then not get an answer, and then the whole thing is forgot because they will match (ph) that request.
RADER (ph): Yes -- just to close the loop on sort of the bunch (ph) points around the physical authorization processes, the definition of admin contact, David's (ph) earlier concerns around who has apparent authority et cetera. Certainly the draft recommendations are on the table and I know I'm stating this as a member of the Drafting Team, not as a member of the task force. So those on the task force and in the community are free to disagree with what we put forward at this point.
But given that the administrative contact or given that it's recommended that the administrative contact and the registrants (ph) have the authority to prove or deny a transfer request, given that the administrative contact is really defined as an individual role or organization authorizing (ph) -- draft (ph) with the registry or registrar on behalf of the name holder, and given that the -- that the -- register relies on the physical authorization -- they really assume the burden of proof -- of obtaining and maintaining reliable evidence of the identity of that administrative contact or registrant.
What we effectively do is create a nice type (INAUDBLE) that opens up the process enough to allow the intermediates, for instance, to become the administrative contact, and actually have some authority and role as it relates to the domain name. It also allows corporate registrars, companies like, you know, whether it be Marilyn's Corporate Group or intellectual property owners and corporate registers like -- to deal with the sort of high -- low volume, high touch approach of obtaining corporate documents effecting the transfer, et cetera, What it effectively does on the opposite side, is pushes out enough of the noise, and air, and -- definition of the process to minimize or completely diminish gaming (ph) around these -- around these processes.
MARILYN: Ross (ph), I need to ask a question of David (ph) and maybe Jennifer (ph). When you guys think about there are three kinds of contacts that you might -- that you gather, do you think the registrants that you're working with consider the administrative contact to be the definitive contact?
WASCHER (ph) (?): Are you still there, Jennifer (ph)?
GILLIAM (ph): I would -- that's just the main information that we, you know, tell them to make sure that that's the information that, you know, what they use in the case if there's a discrepancy or something like that.
MARILYN: OK. David (ph)?
WASCHER (ph): I would agree because what I see also is that as an ISP that is trying to consolidate their resources, they may be moving the domains, not that the registrant isn't necessarily moving the domain because they associate it with a Web site. But the ISP is moving the domain to a specific registrar for a consolidation and be able to have one place to do what's necessary.
MARILYN: Let's talk about that as an example, because I brought that up before to the task force and it is an example. I find that Mark McFadden (ph) who is from the ISP constituency is not with us.But it is an example that is happening not just in the ISPs but in the corporate world as well. Is they don't move just a single name. The move usually a block of names that they manage.
But I've gotten complaints from the ISP constituency, David (ph), that the -- they're being asked to -- they never asked their customer who they were going to register their demand name with in the first place because it was an outsourcing contract, or, you know, you're providing -- it very much fits the description of the service that you -- that you described. Now they want to change registrars and they're asked to go to the registrant a petition (ph) for the 50 names they managed for 15 different companies to move them.
WASCHER (ph): Correct, that makes it very difficult.
MARILYN: Can you guys -- I think it's worth our talking a little bit about this, because I think that's actually a fair -- I think there's probably a fair number of instances where that's the situation that you're faced with as registrars, and that users are faced with.
WASCHER (ph): Well, let's take a quick question, and let me -- let me ask Jennifer (ph). Jennifer (ph), when you are in the process of wanting (ph), what causes you to transfer a domain name to a -- to another registrar's?
GILLIAM (ph): OK. Most of the time, we were transferring from another registrar to our registrar because they're moving their Web page to let us host it, or they're unhappy with something that went on, you know, with their current registrar.
WASCHER (ph): OK. Do -- are they asking you to move the domain name or are they specifically coming over and saying, please move our Web site so you arbitrarily accept the Web site and the domain name as one piece of information?
GILLIAM (ph): Sometimes both. Sometimes they want to go ahead and do -- move both of them together. Sometimes they just want to move their hosting and then, you know, we'll just ask them, would you prefer to have your, you know, domain name through our registrar also. And most of the time, they'd rather just do everything at one place.
RADER (ph): Can I ask you just a mini-follow (ph) up question to that, would that same registrant have any problem with your organization being the administrative contact on the domain name? GILLIAM (ph): On some people we are the admin contact, on others we are not.
RADER (ph): But I mean, it's sort of -- if that were the case where the admin contact or the registrant could approve the transfer, would it be a big customer service issue for you to acquire authorization from these people to become the admin contact to actually manage it effectively on their behalf?
MARILYN: Let me -- let me say something about that and then I want to hear from Jennifer (ph) and David (ph). Some, companies don't want their info (ph) even though they do all the work for them, they don't want their employee listed in the who is as the -- as the contact. Or, the transfers, if that is the case, where the company wants it's employee registered and wouldn't want the third party to be registered.
RADER (ph): No, I'm not talking about specific individuals, Marilyn. I'm more referring to an entity that manages the domain name on behalf of that registrar.
MARILYN: Yes, but let me give you an example. Companies might -- and I'm making this up for Jennifer (ph) because it's actually a different ISP who races (ph) with me, the ISP does all of the -- they provide all the services to their customer base but they do not want their administrative contact listed as the administrative contact. They register the name, but they don't -- the actual registrant is who's listed in the who is database. That particular ISP didn't want to be listed.
RADER (ph): No. But there's a difference between being the registrar... ... and being the administrative contact.
WASHER (ph): Ross (ph), this is David (ph). I understand what you're saying. There are cases where an ISP does not want to be listed as the administrative, that the -- and it's not -- and there's both cases. Where the ISP doesn't want to be the administrator but also the registrant wants to be listed as both, but the ISP is still handling the contact, and the billing, and that kind of stuff of the domain name.
MARILYN: So I think we're just saying that it doesn't -- we don't think it could be just like a slam dunk that you, that, you know, the suggestion you're making to Jennifer (ph) with (INAUDIBLE). Guys, we are running over time. And I really appreciate everyone's time, but let me take a time check. Should we spend 10 more minutes on this.
HALL (ph): Marilyn, it's Rob Hall (ph), I'd love to speak to this.
MARILYN: Oh, good. Yes, Rob (ph). But let me make sure. Is...
HALL (ph): Yes.
MARILYN: Is everyone OK with our continuing?
JEFF NEUMAN: Marilyn, this is Jeff (ph). I have to drop off but you guys should continue. I mean, I'll read the transcript so.
MARILYN: OK. Thank you, Jeff (ph).
JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks, bye.
MARILYN: Yes, Rob (ph)?
HALL (ph): This is the half time, then this is great.
CHRISTINA (ph): Half time? I have another at five -- I have a 4:00, but I can stick around for another five minutes.
HALL (ph): Marilyn, it's Rob (ph), I'll try and be brief. I have a basic fundamental problem with how this discussion is leading.
HALL (ph): If the ISP really wants to act like a registrar and perform registrar services, they ought to go out and become accredited as one and play by the same rules we all do. Giving a third party this authority over that domain over the registrant, in my view, is wrong. And I would hate to see anything put into place that does that. I know there are some registrars that have these huge sub-registrar and I don't want to call them "resellers" because I don't think they're really a reseller. In this case, my definition in my mind, a reseller is somebody who sells someone else's service. And that's not what's happening. Their branding it as their own, and now we're trying to accommodate, you know, this third party and how they can move huge numbers of domains where the registrant's finding about it. And fundamentally, I have a problem with that.
GRANT (ph): Marilyn, can I speak to that, please? It's Ross (ph), here.
MARILYN: Certainly you can, Grant (ph), and then I want to speak to it as well. Go ahead. Grant (ph)?
GRANT (ph): Oh, I would just say from a users point of view, and I think Jennifer (ph) has made this point, many times registrants don't go -- don't understand or want to know about the domain. What they want is a presence in the -- and that's typically through some Web presence (ph). And yet, you and I know that that requires a domain. But they're very happy to leave all that background jittery pockery (ph) to whoever is representing them and their presence in creating their presence (ph) in the Internet sphere. And if that's their ISP, then that's their ISP. And I think there is value or I think registrants see value in a party doing it for them. And so I think ISPs do perform a valuable role, and yes, I do see it as reselling. Whether or not it's rebranding or whether it's just entirely leaving the -- of registration out of the equation, then that's what it is.
MARILYN: Let me just elaborate on that for just a minute. Rob (ph), many of the intermediaries and I should let Jennifer (ph) and David (ph) speak for themselves, but many of the intermediaries that I -- they, you know, they offer a range of services, which might be personal private networking, Web host design and hosting, et cetera, et cetera. A domain names costs $8.00, $7.00, $14.00, $35.00, $50.00. That is not -- their goal is to have that presence on the Web. And just as they don't think that it's all about getting a telephone number, they thought it was about giving a telephone and the number came with it, and that allowed them to use the infrastructure.
That's how a lot of users look at domain names.
And so, I don't think, you know, I want to be sympathetic to the point that you're making where you're saying that an ISP is masquerading as the registrar, I think we're talking about a different player when we talk about the intermediary that's providing this other very broad range of services. HALL (ph): Marilyn, let me -- let me clear up my definition because I think t here is some confusion about it.
HALL (ph): A reseller that goes out and says, I am reselling Name Scope Service and the registrar is Name Scope, and I'll hold your hand and do it all for you, but the contract's with Name Scope. I don't have as much an issue with. A reseller who says, I'll sell the domain names, I take care of that, and funnel it back to the registrars and in effect, acting exactly as a registrar and to somehow give that person authority over the domain over and above what the registrant says is wrong.
RADER (ph): ... Rob (ph)...
RADER (ph): ... what the specific definition that I was talking about earlier was that the administrative contact in this -- in this document is -- operates on behalf of, not instead of or in supercession (ph) of, but on behalf of.
MARILYN: But what I've heard, Ross (ph), is people argue that they won't make the administrative contact this third party, and they want some overriding thing for the third party.
RADER (ph): I would agree with you on that ...
PAUL STAHURA: I would agree with him, too. I -- but, if the ISP or whoever is the admin contact and that -- transfer, then we have to -- I would say we need to transfer it.
HALL (ph): That's not the point I was trying argue, David (ph). It's just giving it to a reseller who's not listed anywhere. How is the registrar supposed to know about it?
WASCHER (ph): That was Paul (ph).
PAUL STAHURA: Yes, that was Paul (ph).
HALL (ph): Paul (ph), I'm sorry, Paul (ph).
PAUL STAHURA: Yes, it was Paul (ph), and I agree with you. You can't -- you can't give the power to transfer to somebody who's not listed in any of the context.
WASCHER (ph): Yes, but in -- but in our -- a lot of times in our situation, when a telco has been transferred over their back end services, and let me point something out to you, that we provide -- Info Avenue itself provide back end services. When somebody has a tech support call, they call the Info Avenue Tech Support, and it is branded as that telco's name. Even though it's us or it's the -- it's the ISP, it is branded. When they go to get Web hosting, our Web servers through that telco is branded as that telco. So are you telling me then that in the last five years, that is the wrong business model?
PAUL STAHURA: No, I agree with the business, but the telco would have to get the authority from the registrant or the admin contact and pass that to you.
PAUL STAHURA:... to the transfer.
MARILYN: ... hold on just a minute. This is really important point and we've talked about it before. I want to suggest we need to come back to it. Here's what I think is in play, and David (ph) and Jennifer (ph) need to help me on this, Mark (ph) and I have had this conversation. Does the holder of the relationship with the customer for other purposes, they in fact be the person who has convinced the customer move from a offline business to a online business, and they presented the solution from -- to them and they have an outsourcing contract or some other kind of contract that governs their relationship with the customer. Paul (ph), does that make sense to you and Rob (ph)?
PAUL STAHURA: Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't they just list themselves as one of the other contacts then like technical contact? And then we would open it up to say, you could get the authority from admin, registrant, and technical?
WASCHER (ph) (?): No, because from a technical standpoint, Ample Avenue (ph) would be listed as the technical and it has nothing to do with the telco.
RADER (ph) (?): Why doesn't the telco list themselves as one of the contacts?
MARILYN: Guys, stop. Instead of our solving the problem, I think we've identified the problem. And what we should do is try to include Christine's working group a bit more exploration of this issue.
RADER (ph) (?): It makes sense.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Sure, just when I was about to hang up.
MARILYN: And because I -- this is, you know, what we're trying to do is to simplify to say, so if -- and it may be -- I talked to Mark about this, it may be that ISPs would have to go out to their customers, change their terms of service, their service agreement or something of that nature. But it's not going to happen over night.
RADER (ph) (?): Correct.
MARILYN: But what we're trying to do is just not get transfers held up because of confusion...
RADER (ph) (?): Correct.
MARILYN: ... and not have that happened when they shouldn't.
PAUL STAHURA: Makes sense.
WASCHER (ph): And I think...
RADER (ph): ... Jennifer (ph), does that sound right to you?
MARILYN: So could we come back to David (ph), and Paul (ph), and Rob (ph), and Jennifer
WASHER (ph) (?): Marilyn?
WASHER (ph): It seems like this is a separate issue from what we were looking at in our little subgroup. We were looking about -- at the ways to verify that authority seeking the transfer is authorized as opposed to determining who should be authorized to make that. It seems to me like a totally different issue.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Yes, it's definitely a broadening of the issue. David's (ph) right.
MARILYN: Are you guys under the -- are you guys operating under the illusion that I'm not going to expand your assignments?
DAVID SAFRAN: It's a separate issue and I'm not even sure that's a related issue.
RADER (ph): If I can jump in, maybe if it's even much Christine and David (ph) off the hook, it's exclusively dealt with in the General Provisions Document.
MARILYN: And so, maybe what we could do is ask Rob (ph), David (ph), Paul (ph), and Jennifer (ph) to comment on that?
RADER (ph): Absolutely -- everybody that's on the call certainly.
PAUL STAHURA:... and Provisions, that one?
RADER (ph): I'm sorry?
HALL (ph): Marilyn, could you maybe e-mail that to the people you listed and show us exactly how we should comment or who we should comment to?
WASHER (ph): Yes.
HALL (ph): ... Obligations and Provisions.
RADER (ph): That's the one, yes.
HALL (ph): OK.
PAUL STAHURA: and I think that needs much more clarification especially from our -- from my standpoint, and I'm assuming it would be from the standpoint of Jennifer (ph) also.
MARILYN: OK, listen, I have -- I need David (ph), I need for you to send me your e-mail in MCADE @ATT.COM (ph). I've got Paul's (ph), I've got Rob's (ph), I've got Bruce's (ph). I need Jennifer's (ph), and anyone else who's on the call now who would want to pay particular attention to this particular area. If you send me your e-mails, then I will make sure that we get -- Ross (ph), can I get you to describe that section and send it back to them?
RADER (ph): It's actually -- it's only a two-page document.
MARILYN: OK. This has been extremely helpful. I think this has -- we've made I think a lot of progress. We need to wrap up in the next two or three minutes and figure out what we do next. But we're probably going to need more help from you guys. You've already given us so much of your time. I don't know, Rick (ph), if there's any other area, Rick Wesson if 're still on? If there's any other area that you, or Denise (ph), or Ken (ph) would want to comment on? Because we've focused a lot on the other folks who are on.
RICK WESSON: that all the comments were very interesting and some of them I haven't heard before. I hope that you guys got what you want. I don't have anything to add.
MICHEL: This is Denise (ph), it's been very helpful -- thanks. And I've got a lot of reading and research to catch up on this issue. I look forward to your output.
MARILYN: Ken (ph)? We may have lost him. He may have had to leave. We're going to have -- obviously, have to have and want to have another open call, but we need to do further work, and -- which we are trying to do. You guys are going to get a document, that two-page document from Ross (ph). We're -- when we do the next call, I think it's -- what we may try to do is actually segment the call into responses on particular sections of the document.
Is there anyone that you think in particular that you -- because you are welcome to encourage anyone that you're interacting with to please take a look at the archives and to, you know, share their thoughts with us. They can't post to the archives, but if you would post to me or to any of the members of the task force, we will post for you.
MICHEL: And this is Denise (ph), I just wanted to let you know that there's several members of that large organizing committee that are very interested in this issue, and would like to participate in the next conference call. So if you could let me know, I'd be. So if you could let me know, I'd be happy to facilitate their involvement. And if we could have about a week or so notice, that would be great.
MARILYN: Next Wednesday, and I'll send that out to everyone. Next Wednesday at the same time.
MICHEL: Great. I got the notice out to them a little late this time or some of them would be on the call so.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: I have got to jump off.
MARILYN: Thank you, Christine (ph).
WASCHER: Marilyn, do you want to give Jennifer (ph) your e-mail address because the phone seems to be echoing?
MARILYN: It's MCADE@att.com
MARILYN: Guys, I know we're kind of wrapping up this and leaping off, but I think this has been very helpful. Ross, from your standpoint, because you're kind of bearing the burden of trying to herd (ph) the cats on those drafting efforts here, anything in particular from your standpoint?
RADER (ph): Well, we have the -- you know, we should have a good feel (ph) forward on the enforcement model, so I think that's relatively clear. You know, what I'd like to do now is (INAUDIBLE) task force is get those general provisions into the base document so that in future review, we've actually got on piece to work on. Because through the, as has been made abundantly clear to me today, that having multiple documents floating around is probably not all that useful.
MARILYN: And we are going to need, folks, more outreach. So let me ask for those of you who are on this call, who of you who are on this call will be, besides the task force, will be in the Shanghai (ph). Rob (ph), will you be there?
HALL (ph): Yes.
MARILYN: David (ph)?
WASCHER (ph): No.
MARILYN: You know, David (ph), you're going to have to come to one of these -- one of these meetings.
WASHER (ph): I normally do but this year has been kind of costly for everybody.
MARILYN: Yes. Paul (ph)? We may have lost Paul (ph). Bruce (ph)? Jennifer (ph)? We're going to -- we will be coming back to all of you guys. The next call will be open as well. It's the same telephone number, so if you e-mail me, then I'll have e-mails to be able to keep in touch with you on and keep you abreast of in case we have to do any -- we may end up having to schedule a separate call or two in order to meet our deadline. And we'd like to be sure we keep in touch with you, and that you feel like you're able to provide input and guidance to us.
WASCHER (ph): Thank you very much for hosting this call, and getting all of us together, and kind of mediating between all of us as we -- as we voice our opinion and that kind of stuff. I appreciate all your help you're doing.
MARILYN: Well, we hope we're going to have a consensus policy at the end of this.
WASCHER (ph): Well, we hope so, too.
MARILYN: Thank you, everyone. END
We welcome your feedback on this transcript. Please go to http://www.emediamillworks.com/feedback/ or call Elizabeth Pennell at 301-731-1728 x138.
Information from: © DNSO Names Council