Transfers Task Force

November 19, 2002




Marilyn Cade – Chair

Jeff Neuman
Marty Schwimmer

Ross Rader

David Safran

Christine Russo


JEFF (ph):  Hello?



 (ph):  Hello?


JEFF (ph):  Hello, this is Jeff (ph).


SCHWIMMER (ph):  This is Marty (ph).  How are you, Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  Good.  How you doing?


SCHWIMMER (ph):  Oh, just hanging out.


JEFF (ph):  I guess we’re the only ones on?


SCHWIMMER (ph):  So how you been?


JEFF (ph):  I haven’t talked to you in a while.  How you been?


SCHWIMMER (ph):  Keeping busy and missing a lot of calls here.  We’re moving into a house and starting a practice.  It’s been kind of busy.


JEFF (ph):  I bet, I bet.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  ... Scottsdale (ph), the INTA (ph).  That was fun.


JEFF (ph):  What was his costume?


SCHWIMMER (ph):  INTA (ph) is this winter meeting.


JEFF (ph):  Oh, OK.  I usually don’t go to the – not – at least the mid – I only go to the annual one.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  How many people attend the mid-winter one – or the mid-year one?


SCHWIMMER (ph):  Well, it’s nowhere near the zoo that the annual meeting is, but I think there’s still a couple hundred.


JEFF (ph):  Wow.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  I mean, at least it’s – there’s only one hotel.  So if you hang out at the lobby you do have the sense of pretty much meeting everyone.


JEFF (ph):  That’s funny.  Yes, it’s a totally different experience.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  Actually, Jane Mutamier (ph) and her partner Neil (ph) (INAUDIBLE) very late, and all the normal hotel rooms were taken, so they upgraded them to a three-room villa.


JEFF (ph):  Wow.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  There was an extra room, so I got a – my hotel and I stayed with them, and on the last day we found out how much it normally costs--$3,500 a night. 


JEFF (ph):  Wow.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  The next ...


JEFF (ph):  I didn’t – wow, Jane (ph)--she gets to travel a lot.  Her law firm let’s her travel a lot.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  Oh, she’s got a sweet deal going on.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, no kidding.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  ... miss a conference.


JEFF (ph):  Oh, wow.  That must be nice.  So I think someone’s joined us.  At least, I thought so on this.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Tell me, Jeff (ph), if you were standing on one foot, how would you summarize the issues I should be thinking about on this task force right now?


JEFF (ph):  That’s a good question.  I don’t know, because we’ve had some interesting calls over the last couple of weeks on what a task force can actually require – well, not what they can require, but how – what the effect is on the contracted parties as far as, you know, what the task force can recommend and what kind of – what jurisdiction a task force would have to – make certain recommendations or what would have to be agreed upon by the contracted parties.  It’s really interesting.  I hear someone typing.


ROSS (ph):  That’s me.


JEFF (ph):  Hey, Ross (ph).


ROSS (ph):  Is Marilyn (ph) on the call?


MARILYN (ph):  I’m on the call now.


ROSS (ph):  Oh, you are on the call.


MARILYN (ph):  I’m on the call, and I heard somebody talking about a villa and I rushed off to see if I could get one.


JEFF (ph):  Marty’s (ph) on the phone.  We haven’t talked to him in forever.


ROSS (ph):  Marty (ph) who?


SCHWIMMER (ph):  Marty Schwimmer (ph).


MARILYN (ph):  Marty (ph), you on the phone?


ROSS (ph):  Marty (ph) who?




ROSS (ph):  I thought you’d retired.


SCHWIMMER (ph):  No, I just had a slow afternoon.


MARILYN (ph):  Well, we’ll speed it up for you.


ROSS (ph):  Well, maybe it’s catching, Marty (ph).


MARILYN (ph):  Hey, sorry to be late getting on the call.  Can you tell me who’s on?


JEFF (ph):  I think it’s just Marty (ph), Jeff (ph), Ross (ph) and you.


MARILYN (ph):  OK.  Let me see if I can add Dan (ph) on.  But we – I was expecting David Saffronsfield (ph) but we probably – we’re going to be basically be editing.  So we can probably go ahead and get started.


Who else just joined us?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Christine (ph).


MARILYN (ph):  Hey, Christine (ph).  I was just actually going to ask about you.  Welcome.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Thank you.


MARILYN (ph):  We have Marty Schwimmer (ph) and Ross (ph) and Jeff (ph), and I’m going to go see if I can get Dan (ph), and we’re not going to wait for Grant (ph).  I think he’s going to be dialing in in a little bit, so why don’t we just go ahead and get started so we can – so we can all hang up at a reasonable hour.  I’m – at least – and schedule our next step so that we can move forward.


Ross (ph), I’m going to turn this over to you and Jeff (ph), if that’s OK with you, to start walking through this while I go find Dan (ph).


JEFF (ph):  No.


ROSS (ph):  What are we – OK, what are we – what are we walking through, specifically?


MARILYN (ph):  Oh, I think we should walk through the current version that you’ve marked up.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


JEFF (ph):  That I marked up, or …


ROSS (ph):  That …


JEFF (ph):  Or that you – that you just sent out?


ROSS (ph):  The one that I just sent out that Marty (ph) and – should I send this directly to the task force list or should we send it directly to individuals …


MARILYN (ph):  Just go ahead and post it to the list at this point.  What I want to do is, you know, this is – this is sort of the combination of work that we’ve been through, and then I want to create a to-do list for the rest of the task force members, besides you and Jeff.  Since not everyone was on the last work session that we had, I’m going to assign the rest of the work.  Ross (ph) and Jeff (ph) had a chance to lobby me about how I need to make other assignments to other members of the task force, so I’m going to do that, and we want mark the things that still have to be done in terms of analyzing comments, assessing comments against our recommendation, documenting the outreach we’ve done and other kinds of things so people can work on that, and Christine (ph), you actually had – I wanted to ask you a favor.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes?


MARILYN (ph):  On your deliverable that you created and that’s been inserted into the transfers document.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes.


MARILYN (ph):  You know the one I mean?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes, it’s coming back to me.


MARILYN (ph):  Would you post that separately, please?  You can clip it out of here if you want to, but you post it separately to me to forward to both the deletes task force and the who is task force.  Both of them have a need for similar kinds of input, and there’s no need to recreate the wheel.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Sure.


ROSS (ph):  Which document is this?


MARILYN (ph):  You know, it’s the thing that Christine (ph) did for us, where she and a couple of other people developed a how you can prove who you are, and it’s in the …


CHRISTINE (ph):  Just a real small section on suggestion forms of identification.


MARILYN (ph):  Right.  It begins on page 12, I think, Ross (ph).  So it’s actually inserted in our documents.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, and if we’re looking at the latest (INAUDIBLE), it’s actually all over nine, 10, 11 and 12, not …


MARILYN (ph):  OK, but I just need the same account for – to put into the other two task forces, and I’d rather …


ROSS (ph):  I’m with you.


MARILYN (ph):  Yes.  OK, I’m looking for Dan (ph).  I’m going to put you on mute while I do that.  Shall we start walking …


ROSS (ph):  I’m just going to give it a couple of seconds to show up on the mailing lists.  I believe I’m getting my copy back now. 


Yes, there it is.  If you guys want to check your e-mail, it’s called fw:  TF REX. 


JEFF (ph):  What does REX stand for?


MARILYN (ph):  By the way, Ross (ph).  Ross (ph), by the way …


ROSS (ph):  Yes?


MARILYN (ph):  In the future should we make it a piece of advice to task forces that they have a campaign for naming of the documents?  That’s just a joke.


ROSS (ph):  OK, so everybody’s got it in front of them?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  All right.


JEFF (ph):  Is this the red lined one?


ROSS (ph):  You can turn the red lighting on, yes.  It is fully red lined, yes.


OK, so just – I’ll give you guys sort of a general overview of where we are with this document, sort of an outline as to what the big changes are, and then we can go into some of the specifics that have been modified, if you guys want to. 


The biggest change that you’ll see, if you scroll down to page three, the table of contents, is that we’ve broken out – we’ve broken down the interim reports into a more logical framework more suitable for the – I guess the needs of the final reports (INAUDIBLE).  Benita (ph) cancelled was the procedure pretty specific as to what they find a report needs to include, what it doesn’t need to include, so rather than trying to make sure that our old documents had all of those attributes, what we’re going to try and do is produce a new document that has all of those attributes.  Thankfully, most of the work is done as it relates to what we’re recommending.  So we took some time last week to break that down into logical terms that fit these main headers. 


The two biggest areas that we dealt with were really the conclusions and recommendations section starting on page nine and going through page 13 and the general observations and considerations that starts on page 33.  What we tried to do was take the general provisions and principle processes portion of the old document and break them into two categories.  One was the specific recommendations of the – of the task force; the other would be sort of the general thoughts, laudatory statements, airy (ph) very high-level statements, which we then slotted into the general observations and considerations segment.  So the big – so you know, so for instance, you know one of those laudatory statements was these should be conducted in a manner that engenders register in confidence.  As there’s no specific recommendation there, we bumped that into general observations rather than making a guided principle or what have you.


Scroll it back up here.  As a sub-header to the specific recommendations, we have two sections called the exhibit A and exhibit B, which are the reference of limitation, and exhibit B is the standardized definitions.  These are very much as written in the interim report.  But what we’ve done for the sake of clarity is break them out into their own sections that provide guidance but don’t necessarily form part of the policy recommendations.  Really, the summary of the policy recommendations starts on page nine under conclusions and recommendations.


That’s really where the bulk of what I’ve been focusing on has been limited to.  If you scroll down to page nine, what I’ve tried to do here, if you turn – I don’t know if red lining would be turned on by default on what you’re seeing or not.  It’s mostly red, so I don’t even know if you want to turn it on.  What I’ve tried to do is turn it into a logical flow that takes a new account of the nature of the transaction, the nature of the processes, reword it in such a way that it’s more understandable for the lay person.  I’ve tried to take out as many of the three and four letter acronyms as possible.  It still needs a little bit more polish, but really it’s been structured for maximum readability.  Now, you guys want to go through these specifically one by one by one, or any comments on that?


DAVID SAFRAN (ph):  Where would I find – this is David safran (ph).


ROSS (ph):  Hi, Dave (ph).


 SAFRAN (ph):  I joined a little bit late, and I’m not sure what we’re looking at where.


ROSS (ph):  It’s the document I just, just sent to the mailing list. 


 SAFRAN (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Marilyn (ph) surprised me with a must review this on this policy.


 SAFRAN (ph):  I’m not sure I have it.


ROSS (ph):  It’s labeled:  forward: TF REX, tax force recommendations.


 SAFRAN (ph):  No, I don’t seem to have anything. 


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  All I had got was the dial-in, you know, that came at the last minute.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, it came shortly after that.


MARILYN (ph):  I’m just now back on the phone.  I was looking for Dan (ph).


 SAFRAN (ph):  I didn’t get anything after her message.


ROSS (ph):  Do you want me to send it to you directly, David (ph)?


 SAFRAN (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  OK, what’s your e-mail address?


 SAFRAN (ph):  D safran …


ROSS (ph):  At NixonPeabody (ph)?


 SAFRAN (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  Perfect.


MARILYN (ph):  Hey, David (ph).  Sorry about that.  I’m – without administrative support, it’s driving me nuts.  I hope I’ll be better by next week. 


ROSS (ph):  All right, David (ph).  That’s well on it’s way.


JEFF (ph):  Marilyn (ph)?


MARILYN (ph):  Yes?


JEFF (ph):  This is Jeff (ph).  Did you get my comments on the executive summary?  I sent them yesterday, so …


MARILYN (ph):  I have them, and they’re printed out, and I was thinking we would back (AUDIO GAP) those if that’s OK with you.


ROSS (ph):  I’m sorry?


MARILYN (ph):  We need to – Jeff (ph), we need to walk back through those …


JEFF (ph):  OK, but Ross (ph) didn’t put them in his document, so nobody else has those.


MARILYN (ph):  Can you just go ahead and post them to the list, and by the time we get to that, people will have them.


JEFF (ph):  How do I do that?  How do I post one section without …


ROSS (ph):  It’s probably best, Jeff (ph), just to give those straight to Marilyn (ph).


MARILYN (ph):  Well, he did.  He did, but how are we going to get them to the other folks on the call?


ROSS (ph):  Well, usually it’s sort of the point in process that I was trying to avoid in that I would much rather we discuss what your final executive summary’s going to look like rather than what the interim is, because I expect they’re going to be radically different documents.


MARILYN (ph):  OK, and I’m happy with that.  I …


ROSS (ph):  I – you know, I can include them if it’s absolutely necessary, but I didn’t expect them to be the same at all.


MARILYN (ph):  Yes, let’s just keep going, and I will get you the – a version with Jeff’s (ph) comments incorporated.


ROSS (ph):  So did you get that document, David (ph)?


 SAFRAN (ph):  No, but I was just realizing, depending on the form of the attachment, our screening may drop it.  Oh, here--it just showed up.


ROSS (ph):  It’s a Word document.


 SAFRAN (ph):  OK.  Yes, that’ll get through.  Here it is.  (INAUDIBLE) second.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  It’s starting on page nine, David (ph).


 SAFRAN (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Now, you’ll notice a striking difference here in that – and certainly there’s, like I said, there’s few areas we still need some polish, and hopefully, Jeff (ph), I’ve gotten all of your comments in here as well, but this kind of a (a) trying to get them all together, and (b) trying to get them in the proper order, is a little bit more than my little brain can handle.  So if I miss anything, let me know.


So let’s start walking through these.  A is an overriding principle.  I tried to get rid of the musts and may language and word it in such a way that both Louie (ph), the lawyers and the average reader could understand it (INAUDIBLE), I guess the engineering structure that we have is section before.  Starting off with number one, registrants must be able to transfer the domain registrations between registrars, provided that the gaining registrars transfer processes, follow minimum standards, and such transfer is not prohibited by I Can (ph) or registry policies.  Now, what we’ve – another general comment, just quickly:  it struck me that setting out these conclusions or recommendations in the order of I guess building blocks, so the first statement is supportive of the second, and so on and so on and so on.  So moving on to number two, implementation of these conclusions and recommendations should, wherever possible, use existing protocols of standards.  Three registrars must provide and maintain an e-mail address for use by all of the registrars and registrees where form of communications concerning the transfer process can be sent and dealt with by the receiving registrar.


For …


MARILYN (ph):  Can I ask a question about that?


ROSS (ph):  Yes, jump in.


MARILYN (ph):  I don’t object to that, but I just have a clarification question.  We discussed this issue yesterday in a different task force.  We got objection by a couple of people, and the weird thing an e-mail address, and we’re not specifying that it could be abuse two cows (ph) dot com.  We’re not saying here that it needs to be a designated person that formal communications can go to, right?  We’re basically saying that even if it – even if it’s just a general e-mail, like abuse, hypothetically, whatever the name of the registrar is, that’s a sufficient e-mail address.  But where do we deal with if there is no response, should there be an appeals – an escalation process, or do we address that at all?


ROSS (ph):  There’s no real – I don’t know.  This was – this was as far as I was on the understanding a requirement of the user community, so …


MARILYN (ph):  I think I would just make one comment that I will …


ROSS (ph):  ... clarity of process, not so much …


MARILYN (ph):  That maybe in a – not in the prescriptive, but in this sort of comment section, and I’ll make a note to myself, there’s been a concern expressed by people about who – if they never get a response, what do they do, and that may be dealt with by the I Can (ph) staff.


ROSS (ph):  I think the process is pretty specific elsewhere in that it can be dealt with with the right number of people depending on who – on where the “bad behavior” comes into play.


MARILYN (ph):  OK, I’m happy with that.  I just wanted to ask that question.  Thanks.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  Moving on, where was I?  Inter-registrar transfer should be conducted in a secure as possible manner and not allow for undue influence or manipulation by the luring registrar or any third party. 


MARILYN (ph):  A lot of the feedback we’ve gotten on this from some of the registrars, I think, is that this is a – this could be viewed as an objective – this may be – may be in the eye of the beholder to interpret it.


ROSS (ph):  On this particular clause, Marilyn?


MARILYN (ph):  Yes.  The undo influence or manipulation, and I think we sort of touched on that in our – where we’re being criticized for micromanaging versus setting forward goal statements, and I did really, I – (INAUDIBLE) read these, I saw a couple of places where we might want to note if we feel we don’t have consensus about a particular point, Ross (ph), that we may not have consensus, but we may still have the majority of opinion or the majority of the task force members feel.  That was something that occurred yesterday in our discussions at the main counsel chair.  One piece of feedback that I had gotten on this is (INAUDIBLE) as possible a manner is very hard to quantify. 


ROSS (ph):  So should we turn this into a observation of the task force then?


MARILYN (ph):  I’m wondering about that.  Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  Yes, I’m just thinking about that too.  Yes, I think we should.


MARILYN (ph):  And because, you know, also it’s, you know, not allowed for undue influence of manipulation by the losing registrar or any other third party.  As an observation, we can put our statement in about the fact when we talk about using communication, we can’t – that’s not consensus, but many in the task force object concern about.


ROSS (ph):  Sorry, what was in the consensus?  You cut out again, Marilyn (ph) …


MARILYN (ph):  Oh, I was thinking about the when we get over to the discussion we have about not using different vehicles to communicate with registrants.  Undo influence or manipulation might be language in a notice which says, “You are about to use your domain name.”  You know, the example that just – Denise Michelle (ph) shared with us at the task force?  Well, she was told if she didn’t renew she was in danger of losing her domain name.


ROSS (ph):  Right.


MARILYN (ph):  We can’t put that in as a consensus recommendation, but we can certainly note that the task force heard concerns expressed about how undue influence and manipulation might take place.


ROSS (ph):  OK, let me – let me think about that, because what I don’t want to lose from this requirement is the concept that responsibility for integrities and transactions is the registrar’s responsibility …


MARILYN (ph):  Sure.


ROSS (ph):  … and that’s certainly something that we’ve heard consensus around, so …


MARILYN (ph):  Right.


ROSS (ph):  I’m just making some notes here.  That’s not an easy thought to capture.  Bear with me. 


OK, all right.  Moving on to number five.  Dominion transfer processes must be as clear, as concise as possible in order to avoid confusing registrants and other stake holders.  Where appropriate, registrars are encouraged to document and publish a specific transfer processes for the benefit of registrants. 


MARILYN (ph):  And so again, that’s a recommendation which I’m happy with.  Are we saying that’s a consensus recommendation, or that is a – sort of a advisory comment, and so I would say – I mean, basically we’re just encouraging them to document and publish.  I – why did we put the where appropriate?  I would think we should – I thought we demonstrate the majority support, and maybe even consensus, for the idea that registrars should document and publish their transfer processes.  I haven’t heard any objection to that, that I recognize; it may have been there.


ROSS (ph):  Well, it may have been lost in the, in the discussion, Marilyn (ph) is the, that's only possible in so far as the registrar has a direct relationship with the registrant.  The registrar typically has no capabilities, direct actions, to third parties like agents or other intermediaries.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So that's what that we're appropriate means?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  That's what I took it to mean.  That's what I meant when I snuck in.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  You heard yesterday some discussion about whether there should be a discussion about the responsibility, how to deal with third parties.  And I agree there's no consensus on it, but I think that there is some expressed concern about the responsibility.  I don't see that as something necessarily this task force will address.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So what's the, what's the recommendation?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well here you're saying registrars are encouraged to document and publish their specific transcript process is for the benefit of registrants and we should flag that.  At this point of responsibility for the intermediaries is not, I'm not, we don't, we have, we have, icant (ph) has no existing requirement for the responsibility for agents or third parties.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, but it's, how do I best phrase this?  Other than the conversation we had yesterday, and other than the very strong opposition that I had from my constituency as it relates to the business models they employee I've heard no real ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Wait, wait, wait, wait.  We had those calls with the telco (ph) to our third parties?




MARILYN (ph):  Who also were asking for clarity for themselves.  But what I'm suggesting (INAUDIBLE) is we just need to flag this as something that we come back to before we publish and ask how we are going to comment on the fact that today there is no clarity on the responsibility of anyone for third parties.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  But even the, but even the question I would object to Marilyn (ph).  I don't, I doubt that the clarity actually, or that lack of clarity actually exists.  I think it's very clear to be honest.


MARILYN (ph):  Why don't you just mark this and we'll come back to it.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Sure.  That's another hard thought to capture.  Mark further discussion.  How does that sound? 


OK, this one is real clear.  Any PBBs (ph), GGLD (ph) registries registrars must provide the registrant – let me just make a lower case must there – must provide the registrant with the registrant's leak (ph) othencial (ph) code within a reasonable period of time of the registrants initial request.  The task force recommends 72 hours or a similarly limited period of time.


Does that capture what you were trying to get to, Jeff (ph), with your modifications?


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Does the, does everybody else on the call get what we're getting at by breaking the 72 hours out from the actual recommendation?  See we mixed an observation with a consensus statement here.  Everybody's cool with that?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, I think to separate that statement out to antoher section would be kind of confusing.  It seems like it's in the right place.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And what we can do is then have a list of the statements which lead to, which are consensus and therefore lead to policy change, Ross (ph)?


ROSS (ph):  Right.  Fair enough.  Is the second sentence soft enough?




ROSS (ph):  Is the second sentence soft enough, i.e. this is a like, I don't know, you guys figure it out, but 72 hours sounds good kind of, like that's really what we're trying to say there.  We don't really care if it's 72 or 96 or 48 hours, but it should be roughly 72, 96, and 48 hours.


JEFF (ph):  You know what it doesn't say is it doesn't say where we got the 72 hours from.




JEFF (ph):  So that's why, I think what I, when I sent it to you I think I had task force received feedback or – let's see how I worded it.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes I remember the wording.  I didn't use that specific statement, Jeff (ph), because I don't ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Ross (ph)?  Ross (ph), I have an idea.


ROSS (ph):  Yes?


MARILYN (ph):  Why don't you say the task force believes consensus exists for a standard, standardized limited period of time semicolon task force recommends 72 hours or a similarly limited period.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think that's just, Marilyn (ph), I think that's the same problem.  We need to say that we got feedback from the community that 72 hours was reasonable.


MARILYN (ph):  OK, but put the first part in that says that we believe there is, we believe we've demonstrated consensus for a standard time frame and then we received feedback that 72 hours was reasonable.  That leaves the, in the negotiation if it gets expanded to another 24 plus that still is consistent with a standardized limited timeframe.  And I think that will limit the criticism.


ROSS (ph):  All right.  An EPP (ph) based GTLD (ph) registry's registrars may not employ any mechanism for a registrant to obtain it's authentical (ph) code that is more restrictive than what it requires from a registrant to change any aspect of its contact or name server information.


JEFF (ph):  I think we need to fix up the verb noun.  I think it should say that is more restrictive than what they require.


MARILYN (ph):  Oh good, yes.


ROSS (ph):  You know I don't see any squiggly shares (ph) from word (ph) Jeff (ph).  Are you sure that that's the?  Done.


MARILYN (ph):  But can I just say this again.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


MARILYN (ph):  That they require when a registrant changes, or when their registrant changes.  As if, I'm only trying to, so if you know, make it, and you basically are saying it can vary from EPP (ph) registry to registry, but it just can't be anymore restrictive.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, but it's registrar to registrar I'm not think ...


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... the ...


MARILYN (ph):  Oh got it.  OK, I got it, so.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, I hear what you're saying, but I think we've captured that.


MARILYN (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  And made it a little bit more inclusive than what you had proposed.


MARILYN (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Moving on to eight.  Parties not authorized by the registrant must not be able to successfully initiate and complete – those are tide (ph) words – and complete an inter-registrar domain name transfer.  Is that specific enough?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Where, and where do we define what authorized by the registrant means?  I agree with it, but you know, sprinkled through this is this idea of this person can, the othencial (ph) code does it, the administrative contact does it, the registrant trumps.


ROSS (ph):  We don't get on to that around, until 15, 16, or 17.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Then I would just put an asterisk here beside parties not authorized by the registrant and note for us, and maybe you want to put it in the body, be sure you explain who that would be.


ROSS (ph):  OK, explain who is not authorized.  Got you.


JEFF (ph):  Hey Ross (ph).  I made this comment in the last draft, and I don't know, why don't we make that sentence into a positive rather than the negative?  You know, only parties authorized, well the way I had worded it was the process must, the IRDX (ph) process must allow parties authorized by the registrant to seamless complete transfer unless such transfer is prohibited by icant (ph) or the registry contract.  I think that was where it was derived from, right?  But you, so basically you could just say, I think we could turn it around and make it a positive.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Now Jeff (ph), the only thing I'm going to say to both you and Ross (ph) and I know David (ph) and Marty (ph) are both lawyers, most users are not.  When you think about the language and since this is supposed to be sort of a policy recommendation, do think about how we keep it consistent with what you need versus say, you know, from a legal standpoint but not getting too legalize for people.


 SAFRAN (ph):  It seems like you could just say only parties authorized instead of parties not authorized ...




 SAFRAN (ph):  ... and then drop the not in must not.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, that's what I was thinking Dave (ph).   And you know in fairness to Jeff (ph) I just I didn't include that because I didn't even have time to think about the implications of the positive whereas the implications of the negative were quite clear, so.  To only parties – OK, next the gaining registrar must provide the registrant or administrative contactive (ph) record, capital R, the capability to verify their intention to transfer the domain name registration.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, I didn't quite understand fully what you meant by that.


ROSS (ph):  It's not enough to assume that a registrant wishes to transfer?


JEFF (ph):  If so, but I mean are you saying beginning registrars must send like an e-mail after the fact, not – I didn't understand the implication of the sentence.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think what it's trying to say is that before it goes through the registrant should be, in essence of the opportunity to kill it or he has to give the registrar the opportunity to confirm that he wants this thing to go through.  He doesn't necessarily have to.  It could be, you know, simply by not responding he's authorizing, but he at least has to give the registrant some opportunity to speak up and say hey I didn't authorize this.


ROSS (ph):  That is correct.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That's the way I read it.


JEFF (ph):  I think you're going to have registrars playing with that one.  If that's OK that's fine.  I mean just you're going to have a lot, you're going to have registrars doing that a lot of different ways and not, and not consistent among registrars.  So you're going to have some that will send an e-mail back.  You'll have some that, you know, provide it in a small little clause in their terms of use agreement that says you could change it within a day.  I mean if that's OK then we don't need to address it, but I think that's what you're going to have.


ROSS (ph):  Or we're going to have registrars that require their registrants' form of authorization as the process describes.  I think we're pretty specific on this one.  I don't see where we get the game (ph).


JEFF (ph):  Well see that's me doesn't me, to me that means separate and apart from the standard form of authorization you have to allow them to confirm their intent.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think you can solve that by simply saying at the time of the transfer, just add that in.


JEFF (ph):  I still think it's unclear.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well if you say that during the transfer process you have to give that opportunity then that standard form at the beginning can't be used.


ROSS (ph):  Well yes I kind of see what Jeff (ph) is saying.  I definitely hear you, David (ph).  What I'll do is modify this just to include verify their intention to transfer the domain name registration ...


JEFF (ph):  As evidenced by the filling out of a standard form of authorization?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  Yes.  And there's no longer a standard form of authorization, it's the standardized form of authorization.


JEFF (ph):  Oh sorry.


ROSS (ph):  We haven't got to that yet though.  Fair enough.  Moving on to 10.  The gaining registrar is solely responsible for validating registrant request to transfer domain names between registrars. 


Now I'm not going to let you guys discuss this one without the benefit of hearing what 11 says.  The losing registrar retains the option to independently verify the registrant's attempt to transfer his domain name to the gaining registrar.  These are tied statements.  I can make them one paragraph if you wish.


JEFF (ph):  Why don't you take out the word solely?


ROSS (ph):  Because that's what leads us down the road we're at now with the current (ph) limitation.  The gaining registrar has sole responsibility for validating the request.  That's right.  That's, we're talking about an immutable action that must occur.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, and I agree with the concept.  It's just between two sentences it's kind of confusing.  Because you say on the one hand the gaining registrar is solely responsible meaning that it's the only one that has, that can do it.  And 11 says they're not solely responsible.


ROSS (ph):  No 11 states that they retain the option to independently verify.


JEFF (ph):  Right.


ROSS (ph):  There's a difference in sole responsibility for validation and the option to independently verify. 


JEFF (ph):  Right, the concept I agree with.  I think the wording is just a little confusing. 


ROSS (ph):  I have no suggestions.  Help me.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, I'm trying to think now.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Change verify to confirm in number 11.


ROSS (ph):  Does that go far enough, Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  What if you say the losing registrar may however confirm or independently confirm the registrant's intent.  And then you should have as a follow up sentence saying something like however failure of losing registrar to confirm shall not prevent a transfer.  Or shall not be grounds to ...


ROSS (ph):  OK, so let me just break this down very, very slowly here.  Bear with me.  Retains is only tying back the existing statement to the existing policy.  It's argued, and this is an argument that I don't buy, but it's not one I'm willing to make that the current exhibit B (ph) gives losing registrars the right to, if they choose, verify the intent of a registrant.  Do we need to retain language that refers back to the existing policy would be the question?


JEFF (ph):  No because it's going to change anyway.


ROSS (ph):  So then we can change this to however, this does not preclude the losing registrar ...


JEFF (ph):  From independently confirming ...


ROSS (ph):  ... exercising its options, independently confirm.  So how does that sound?  I'll read the two together.


The gaining registrar is solely responsible for validating registrant request to transfer domain names between registrars.  And number 11, however, this does not preclude the losing registrar from exercising its options to independently confirm the registrant's intent to transfer its domain name to the gaining registrar.


JEFF (ph):  And then I think you need a third part.  That's the first two, and a third one should say something – and this is not the exact word – but should ...


ROSS (ph):  I think the ...


STEVE (ph):  I think 12 gets the, that goes into 12 what you're talking about, but I think if you're going to use that however language you shouldn't have separate 10s and 11s.  You should just put it all in 10.  Otherwise the however has nothing to revert, to relate back to.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, I think, yes, Steve (ph) right now don't look at the numbers as anything but convenient replacements for bullet points, so as far as the how things are broken out it's more for readability at this point then it is anything else.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And then what he was talking about I think fits into 11 better than, or I mean into 12 better than 11 because there it talks about what happens if he does, and then following that you can say however if he doesn't then, you know, the transfer is still able to go through.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, if the losing registrar is not able to confirm then the transfer still goes through unless the registrant explicitly states no or expressly responds no.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, I'll write this down messy now.  OK, got you.  Number 13, I only gloss over that because the notes look like their messy.  I need some time to chew on what the words look like.  Thirteen if the losing registrar chooses to independently confirm the intent of the registrant when the losing registrar receives notice of pending transfer from the registry.  The losing registrar must do so in a manner consistent with the standards set forth in these recommendations.


Pertaining to gaining registrars, specifically the form of request employed by the losing registrar must provide the registered name only (ph) with clear instructions for proving or denying the request for authorization and a concise declaration describing the impact of the registered name holder's decisions.  Any comments?


So what we're saying here is that if the losing registrar chooses to undertake an independent verification of the registrant's intent they must do so in a manner consistent with the practices employed by the process that the gaining registrar has to use.  No comments on that one?


Moving on to 14, this requirement is not intended to preclude the losing registrar from marketing to his existing customers ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Ross (ph), can I go back, sorry. 


ROSS (ph):  No problem.


CHRISTINE (ph):  It takes me a while.  Do we want to add something to the end of that sentence that says and a concise declaration describing the impact of the registered name holder's decisions – help me with the words – including their failure to respond?  In other words if you fail to respond it's going to go through?


ROSS (ph):  I think we might be getting too precise with that.


CHRISTINE (ph):  OK, OK, go ahead.


ROSS (ph):  Only because if there's, if we describe that we've got a myriad of decisions to describe.  So I completely ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... and I'd like to, but I just think that the possible variables we'd have to cover are too expansive.




ROSS (ph):  Unless there's, unless we need to get to that level of precision.  I'd like to hear from other people maybe because it's a great point.  Nobody has an opinion on that?


JEFF (ph):  I'm sorry I missed it.


ROSS (ph):  So what Christine (ph) proposes that we include a specific example of one of, what one of those decisions might be.  In other words if you fail to respond the name will still go through or if you move to another registrar we're not going to, your e-mail may not work, or ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Well I guess that's not what I had in mind.  What I had in mind was because there's been such issue with losing registrars nagging transfers if they don't hear from their people I thought if we could just add where it says in the concise declaration describing the impact of the registered name holder's decisions including – because you're asking them to have clear instructions for approving or denying so then the end of that sentence sort of, sort of goes with approving or denying, but what happens if I don't respond.  Do they need to make it clear to the registrar that if you don't respond it's going to go through?


ROSS (ph):  OK, OK, OK, OK, if the registrant doesn't respond, OK, that makes a lot of sense actually.  It's not nearly as vast as I initially heard. 


OK, 14, this requirement does not intend to preclude the losing registrar from marketing to its existing customers through separate communications.  This requirement is intended to ensure that the form of request employed by the losing registrar is substantially administrative and informative in nature and clearly provided to the registrant – I keep finding these registered name holders all over the place – clearly provided to the registrant for the purpose of verifying the intent of the registrant.  And I'll just make the editorial note that this will be amended shortly to include registrant or administrative contact.  Any comments on that one?


Come on guys we're almost there.  We're almost done.  In the event that a registrant has not confirmed their intent to transfer to the losing registrar and the losing registrar has not explicitly denied the transfer request in accordance with these recommendations – and this is where we'll have to go back to the new 12 – has not explicitly denied the transfer request in accordance with these recommendations lethal (ph) action will be to allow the transfer to proceed.  The presumption in all cases will be that the gaining registrar has received and authenticated the requisite request from the registrant or administrative contact.  This is the underlying statement of default action and rule.  In instances where the losing registrar does not feel that the gaining registrar has obtained the requisite and authorization described in this recommendation the losing registrar may file a dispute as described in the reference of limitation (ph).


JEFF (ph):  I would take out the second time you say this is the underlying statement of default action and rule.  I just think that sentence doesn't add anything.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


JEFF (ph):  Since you say it above.


ROSS (ph):  If nobody disagrees I will hit the delete key.  Anyone else?  OK, moving on to 16, in the event of disputes over payment the losing registrar must not employ transfer processes as a mechanism to secure payment for services from a registrant.  In other words the losing registrar has other mechanism available to it to collect payments from the registrant that are independent from the transfer process, therefore any EPP (ph) based TLDs (ph) losing registrar must not refuse to release an othencial (ph) code to the registrant solely because there is a dispute between the registrant and the registrar over payment.


Jeff (ph) I'd like to modify that slightly to say something to the effect of also an EPP (ph) based TLDs (ph) or something like that rather than therefore because therefore isn't (ph) a conclusion of the preceding statement.  See what I'm saying?


JEFF (ph):  It was really just, you said also?


ROSS (ph):  Yes this statement, this last sentence is presented as just by it's construct is a conclusion to the preceding two sentences, so if I say further any EPP (ph) based TLDs (ph) or something like then I think it's a little bit clearer that these aren't, that that's not the conclusion it's an additional condition.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Anyone else want to jump in?  OK, I'll move on.  If you just scrolled ahead like I did you realize we're not nearly as done as I thought.  The administrative contact and the registrant as outlined in losing registrar's publicly accessible who is (ph) service are the only parties that have the authority to approve or deny a transfer request to the gaining registrar.  In all cases the wishes of the registrant supercede those of the administrative contact.


Key statement here is from my perspective, well there's a couple.  That if you've been in contact with a registrant that have the authority that the registrant's authority supercedes that of the administrative contact, and third there's a very subtle indication that the registrar's hidden (ph) customer data records are not to be deemed authoritative (ph).  It's the publicly accessible data through the who is (ph) that's considered to be authoritative.


JEFF (ph):  Ross (ph) I've got one comment, one issue that's kind of come up that someone brought to my attention.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  When we say registrant in the EPP (ph) based registries there is both a registrant name and a registrant organization.  Are we too vague if we just say registrant or it may be intentionally so I mean for example the registrant for New Star (ph) would be, you know, whoever handles it here, the security group, but the organization is New Star (ph).  Which one of those two has the right?


ROSS (ph):  I think it's important to use a defined term, Jeff (ph), and if that means that our definitions – this is sort of what I was trying to get to with the e-mail earlier.  We can use registrant.  We can use fishmonger (ph).  I don't think it really matters what the label is as long as the definition provides sufficient guidance to those who actually have to draft these sort of contracts that the intent is achieved.  So whether it be register organization, registered name, or registrant name, whatever it is I don't think it really matters as long as it's clear that it's the owner i.e. the subscription holder of the domain name that is truly the one that we're giving the authority to, not some third party.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, but even within that owner there's still disputes right now.  And I know registrars, there are a bunch of registrars, we get calls all the time where registrars are confused because the organization says one thing but the person at the e-mail address says another.  And then the registrar is just kind of stuck in the middle not knowing what to do.  But some registrars just automatically go with the organization.  Some registrars wont do anything.  So for example like Marilyn (ph), in Marilyn's (ph) case the person that, you know, whether it's AT&T or is the person that has the e-mail address at AT&T which she said on a number of occasions doesn't have authority to do anything, but the registrar is not going to know that.


ROSS (ph):  I hear what you're saying.  I'm not sure that we can fix that with this policy.  Only and let me cut you off before you cut me off, and I only say that because I think that's going to differ from organization to organization and they're treatment over who's contact details go in that registrant field.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, I mean I agree that it's probably not something we can solve.


ROSS (ph):  I think we almost some pathological obsessions at this point.  Almost.  Let me see if I can tweak the definition such that it at least all hangs together appropriately.  So if for instance we can take, we can mention it in the definitions that there's exceptions in EPP (ph) based registries and they are X, Y, and Z, just so that at least it's clear to those that have to put together the contracts that there's potential man (ph) traps here.  Sound reasonable, or?


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  To 18, the gaining registrar must use a standardized form of authorizations to seek the approval of the registrant or administrative contact. Now I, part of the work to make this stuff clearer I went with the term standardized versus standard just based on some feedback that I had heard.  That a standard form of authorization seems to imply some sort of a formal document that's got the blessing of everyone, whereas what we're really saying is it must be just a standardized form that everybody is using.  So not wanting to force the creation of a new task force to create the standardized form of authorization, the standard form of authorization I went with somewhat less defined term I guess you could call it. 


And then immediately in the next statement we say icant (ph) should support the development of the standardized form of authorization through staff consultation with impact to stakeholders with guidance as to intent the scope from this task force.  This form must be usable in both physical and online automated systems (INAUDIBLE) e-mail. 


So it makes sense?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  But you need to put 18 in with 17, if you're going to use the general disk (ph). 




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK, moving on, 19.  In the event that the gaining (ph) rich (ph) germis (ph) will (ph) rely on a physical process to obtain this authorization, a paper copy of the standardized form of authorization will suffice, insofar as it has been signed by the registrant (ph) to administer (ph) (INAUDIBLE) of contact, and is accompanied by the extensive lists of things that Christine (ph) put together earlier that I don't want to do through, and a copy of the (INAUDIBLE) registrant (ph) who is output to the remaining (ph) question.


Any comments on that?  It's not changed, other than to change the term "standardized (ph)," so I don't think we're going to need this agreement (ph), unless I hear some (ph) now.  No – OK.


Any registrar (ph) – go ahead.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK, never mind.  I didn't scroll down far enough this (ph) EC (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK, 20, gaining (ph) registrars (ph) must maintain reliable records of the standardized form of authorization, by the registrant or administrative contact of record.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Should be take out the word "reliable" – it's kind of subjective, and just have "gain registrars (ph) must maintain records for ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Do we really mean copies of?




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Why don't we take copies (ph) out (ph)?




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Just trying to think all (ph) of (ph) the subjective terms.




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, especially the "use records."  That could just be a file saying that they ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... received it (ph) (INAUDIBLE) yes, you're right.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK, 21, gaining registrars must allow – what is this?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, I would take out reasonable.  January (ph) to (ph) start ...






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Allow inspection by the losing (ph) registrar and other relative third parties, such as I can (ph), the registry operator, or third-party dispute resolution panel of the evidence.  Oh, I see why that sentence sounds terrible.  OK, let me rework this sentence.  Does anybody have any concerns around the intent?




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, could just say "January (ph) starts (ph) must allow the reasonable – oh, I'm sorry – January (ph) starts (ph) must allow the inspection of the evidence relied upon for the transfer, during and after the applicable transfer by so and so.






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  All right, 22, copies of this reliable evidence of identity must be kept with the standardized form of authorization.  Beginning registrar must routine and procedure pursuant to a request by a losing registrar (ph) a written or electronic copy of the standardized form of authorization.  The losing registrar (ph) retains (ph) the right to inspect this documentation at all time.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Cross (ph) (INAUDIBLE) the first sentence into (ph) and number 20.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No it's not, because in 19, which 20 refers to, we're talking about both the standardized form and the types of identity.  Twenty only refers to the form and 22 is referencing the evidence of identity.  So, we're saying you got to keep the military ID with the standardized form at all times.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  But, the use of the term "this" makes it confusing (INAUDIBLE) had a seasoned (ph) relationship, you don't know what this reliable evidence is.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So, you might change the copies of whatever the three things, must be kept ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Is there any time limit that (INAUDIBLE) has to request the – you know, can a losing registrar (ph) ask to see a copy of the authorization two years later?  Are there any time constraints on this?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Certainly that's something we never discussed.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It just sort of came to me, because I actually had someone call me a while ago disputing a transfer that happened – not two years, but quite a while ago.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think it's reasonable there to – I mean ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, I think Ross (ph) – I think the (INAUDIBLE) registrar (ph) (INAUDIBLE) usually requires documents to be kept like three years.






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, two, three years, I can't remember which one.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... I don't think I've ever seen that in my ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, it's in there somewhere.  It's in there somewhere.  I don't know – yes, I don't even know.  Anybody else have any comments on that?  Seth (ph), you know, I think as a matter of form (INAUDIBLE) I'd like to be able to solve as many problems as we can, but at the end of the day, you know, I don't want to be solving the one problem that might occur ever 50 years, so I think it's irrelevant, so I have no strong feeling either way ...




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... and apparently nobody else does either.  So, unless you were expressing a strong feeling.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'm just throwing these things out as they pop into my head.  After next week they have relevance to me either.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... I'll not let the record reflect that ...


GRANT (ph):  Hey, Ross (ph), it's Grant (ph) here.


ROSS (ph):  Hey Grant (ph), how you doing?


GRANT (ph):  I'm very well, thank you.  I think you do need to put a timeframe in there.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, Ross (ph), can we just say something like consistent with – not the wording – but consistent with ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  With the document retention standards that we mentioned somewhere else.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  In the registry/registrar agreement, or wherever it is – yes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It's just (INAUDIBLE) yes.  Fair enough.  That's what I get for being lazy.  Twenty three – "in instances where the losing registrars requested (ph) copies of the standardized form of authorization, the gaining registrar must fulfill the losing registrar's request, including providing the intended (ph) supporting documentation, within a reasonable period of time, from the receive (ph) to the request."  The task force recommends three business days, and I'll modify that and (ph) recommend three-business days, the same way we modified the earlier one.


Failure to provide this documentation within the time period specified is grounds for reversal by the registry operator – a resolution panel, in the event that the transient (ph) complaint is filed, in accordance with the recommendation of district court.  Is (ph) everybody OK with that?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  One minor thing.  I don't want to imply that if a gaining registrar doesn't comply that automatically sets (ph) grounds for reversal.  I think it's evidence to be considered by the panel, but not automatic grounds to reverse it.  See what I'm saying?  Like if it turns out that the transfer was actually authorized, it's just that the registrar didn't turn over its document within three-business days, I don't think the transfer should automatically be reversed.




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I would agree with that also.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Can you write that up, Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  I could try.




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  twenty-four, we added a couple of sentences there, so I'll read the whole thing.  "A losing registrar may deny transfer request only in the following instances:  A, evidence of fraud – B, (INAUDIBLE) action – C, court order – D, the addition is reasonable in front of dispute, over the identify of the registrar (INAUDIBLE) contents (ph) – E, no payment for previous registration period, if the domain name has passed its expiration date, or if a previous or current registration periods for the main name has not yet expired.  In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into registrar pool, but the losing registrar status (INAUDIBLE) the denial of transfer."


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think you want to put status after registrar hold (ph) – right?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think so – cut and paste.


Let me reread that sentence now – in all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into registrar hold status by the losing registrar, prior to the denial of transfer (INAUDIBLE) is express objection from the registrant to administrative contact.


The only comment, or the only question after (ph) task force, when we initially put express (ph) objection from the registrant to administrative contact, did we have any thoughts as to what constituted express objection?  Is this express written – express verbal?  How express need express be it – the question is, I (ph) suppose (ph), and should we specify?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Well, I think if the losing registrar is going to rely on, it should probably be written.  You know, otherwise you get into the situation where, you know, losing registrar (INAUDIBLE) gaining registrar asks why – losing registrar says, well I got a phone call and they said not to.  And gaining registrar says prove it, losing registrar cant'.  It just ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Actually, Christine (ph), I thought that was the normal state of play today.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Which is one of the problems they're trying to fix – right?




CHRISTINE (ph):  Right, so ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, so I would agree with that, as well – written is good.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Then, the next question would be how do we state – because what we don't want to run into is a situation where we require the losing registrar to gain some notarized or signed physical document.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think it could be an e-mail.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  But, why couldn't it be – it could be an e-mail, it could be a fax – why couldn't it be paper?  If you're making a request to change another country isn't it possible you would mail it?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So, we would then qualify S (ph) with ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, I think not (ph) qualified.  I think written, as it's used today, (INAUDIBLE) implies e-mail, as well as paper and other writings (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, but I'm just – you know, at this late stage I'm really wary that somebody's going to take this to mean it must be on paper ...




ROSS (ph):  ... and whereas I think what we're saying is it could be on e-mail, paper or ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, Ross (ph), why couldn't you put in parenthesis, e.g. something of that nature?


ROSS (ph):  OK ...




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Ross (ph), I know the express objection is capitalized (ph).  Does that mean it's defined somewhere?


ROSS (ph):  No, it just means it's starting a sentence.








UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Sorry, I'm looking at 25 B (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Oh.  Oh, yes, it is capitalized there, too.




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I (INAUDIBLE) it myself.  I shall slow down.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  You're (ph) such a go-getter ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Is express objection defined in our definitions?






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Express written objection.  I'll change it in both places and qualify written under S (ph) – e.g., e-mail, fax






DAN STEINBERG (ph):  Hi, this is Dan Steinberg (ph).  I just joined the call a few minutes ago – apologizes for the lateness.




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Oh, sorry about that Dan (ph).


STEINBERG (ph):  It's not your fault, it's mine. 


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK.  On 24 D we added in the word "reasonable."  Is that reasonable?




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Maybe you could fill me in, Jeff (ph), as to where, or as to why you want to qualify dispute with reasonable?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'm sorry, where are you ...






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think – I think – because D would leave a wide opening for a losing registrar, without the word reasonable.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That's what I thought.  OK.  I'm going to move on to 25.


Instances when it is considered inappropriate for (ph) losing registrar to deny transfer include, but are not limited to, A, nonpayment for a pending or future registration period – B, no response from the registrant (ph) under (ph) administrative contact, unless the losing registrar shows evidence of lower case E, written lower-case O objection, from the registrant or administrative contact – C the main name in the registrar and lock status, unless the losing registrar provides registrants with an accessible mechanism that allows them (INAUDIBLE) off the table for now, because I've got questions for everybody on that.


Are A and B OK?  The question I have is I've got a language choice to make here, so I've written them in parenthesis, with a slash between them.  If you guys could let me know which one is specific enough for our purposes.  I'd like to keep it as loose and as descriptive as possible ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'm not going to vote, because mine's one of the choices.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And, so the two brackets are the two choices?




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And the reason the name is in registrar-lock status is because the registrant has agreed to that?




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No, it's irrelevant.  You know, in both cases, the language presumes that that distinction is irrelevant if the registrant has the capability to unlock.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think it's the – this unless the losing – some of this language is just so – may be comfortable to registrars, but may be very confusing to lay people.  Unless the losing registrar – so the main name – it is not appropriate the losing registrar should deny a transfer if the domain name is in registrar unlock (ph) status – right?






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, this basically – this seems to say – OK, the name is in registrar lock status, and so that's not a reason to deny a transfer request.  If the losing registrar has provided an acceptable mechanisms that allows them to unlock it, then – and they've chosen not to unlock it ...




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  This is a communication gap to me.  You're making an assumption that losing registrar has notified the registrant of the mechanism, and I think ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, that's kind of – I'll give it away.  I have the second one.  Ross (ph) put in the first one.  I ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... take credit for the second one, Jeff (ph), come on.


JEFF (ph):  What's that?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I wanted to take credit for the second one.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, I vote for the second.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  The second one takes care of my problem.






ROSS (ph):  Hey, no, I wasn't tied to either, I just wanted to sort of –because you were kind of going a little bit further than what we'd initially specified, so I wanted to make sure that that was ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'd like to throw in a third one.




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I don't like this negative way of approaching it.  Can't was simply say (INAUDIBLE) registrar lock status, where the registrar has failed to provide the registrant with a reasonable opportunity and ability to unlock the (INAUDIBLE) prior to the transfer.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  But, that's pretty negative.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... transfer.  That's a reason to ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, let me switch the – yes, let me see if I can – yes.  I think you're just driving for some greater clarity in the statement, David (ph), and that's ...


 SAFRAN (ph):  Right.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... taken (ph).  So, let me see if I can chew on that and come up with something that (INAUDIBLE) meaning (ph), as well.  And (ph) (INAUDIBLE) have not changed, unless there are suggested changes from the task force.  No.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Can you simplify the beginning of 25 and just say, "it is inappropriate for the losing registrar to deny a transfer when ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That (INAUDIBLE) includes the list, though.  We have to say, "yes, but not limited to," or something like that.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Right.  It just seems very passive.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It's very passive, and it looks like it was drafted by a lawyer ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Whereas, I think 24 is pretty explicit, and I think that's where we need to be very strong.  Twenty five – I don't care if it doesn't even exist, to be honest.  With the exception of the unlocked stuff in there we're not really – it's more guidance than anything else.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, B is pretty important (INAUDIBLE) used by all registrars now that knack (ph) transfers.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  But, I think what we're doing here is not – we're solving future problems, not solving existing problems – I guess what I meant to say.






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'm just kidding (INAUDIBLE) you said I'm solving future problems.




 SAFRAN (ph):  I'll (ph) write (ph) in 25 (INAUDIBLE) a positive statement of simply saying – instead of what's in (ph) it (ph), that instances in which it is inappropriate for the losing registrar (INAUDIBLE) got a lot of words there, when it is – when it's some sort of positive statement that is not – you know, just say it's not appropriate to deny or request a transfer in the following instances.  You know, would (ph) be appropriate, you know, but not limited to.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I hear what you're saying, David (ph), but I'd be disinclined to move back from the big implication of the statement – of these two statements really – is that in 24 we're saying the registrar can only deny for a very limited number of reasons, and we've reinforced that in 25, by acknowledging the fact that there's these reasons when you shouldn't be doing ...


 SAFRAN (ph):  Right.  And I guess what I have a problem with is the word inappropriate.  To me you can do things that may not be appropriate, but you can do it.  I think something more positive, saying these are considered to be improper – you know, it's an improper action to deny (INAUDIBLE) these circumstances.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So, that's fair.  So, we'll say instances when a losing registrar may not deny a transfer request, includes, but are not limited to.


 SAFRAN (ph):  Right.  That's what I was driving at (INAUDIBLE) inappropriate that was gnawing at me.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... do you want to say "may not," or "should not?"


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  May not, because I think should is just as loose (INAUDIBLE) is inappropriate, in that case.  Should implies might – right – maybe, maybe not.






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... the Ten Commandments.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And I think with that that endith (ph) part of the (INAUDIBLE), as it were, so I'll hand it back to Marilyn (ph), unless (INAUDIBLE) comments.


MARILYN (ph):  OK.  We're going to get back those changes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:   Oh, the only other change I made to the document is under definition.  I moved "form of authorization" to "standardized form of authorization," and re alphabetized it, but ...


MARILYN (ph):  And what do we do with ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Or did we want to talk about the observations?


MARILYN (ph):  Yes.  Yes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'd forgotten about those.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Sorry, Ross (ph), can I just ask a question on this document here now?  Have you gone through and done what I understand the power of be want us to do, which is to strip out quote "principles" from quote "administrative detail?"  Are we going down that track?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes (ph).  Is the document which you've currently got open, which I've now print (ph) off – is that in the form which you think meets that requirement, or is that ...


ROSS (ph):  You know, yes and no.  I think the requirements that they set forward is rather vague, and I think we've created a framework that's A, adheres to the (INAUDIBLE) procedure, and B, tries to draw a distinction between what we think is good and what we know is good.  And as far as fulfilling that actual requirement you describe (ph) I don't know.  I mean, I don't think we are going to know until their either approve it or disapprove it.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And let me – let me try it slightly differently, Ross (ph), and see (INAUDIBLE).  I think what we're being asked to do is to say, like on item – lets just take item one – registrar (ph) (INAUDIBLE) be able to transfer the domain name, between registrars, probably minimum standards and such transfer is not prohibited.


I think what we have to do is to say is this a change, and is this a change in present policy?  Is it an enforcement of existing policy?  If it's a change in existing policy do we have consent and can we demonstrate?  And that's probably in the next stage of our work, which we have to do very quickly – right?  Do we – because we have to document consensus or reasoned opposition, or blah, blah, blah.  And we're going to have to do that for each of these. 


(INAUDIBLE) first step is probably to say some of these are not policy changes, but are recommendations – right?  So, we call this conclusions and recommendations, but in the guidance we got from –both from Bruce (ph), and also from Louie (ph), more importantly, I believe what we were being asked to do is to note where it is actually – it requires a (INAUDIBLE) change, and as a contract change requires consensus, or it is some other form of policy (ph) change and would therefore require consensus, but where we're merely making a recommendation, or calling for implementation under existing policy?


And is that more the question Grant (ph) was asking?  Like do we need that – are we following – are we going to process where we can say we've checked that box, so that when we hand it to the Name's (ph) Council (ph) we're able to say taking into account feedback from certain parties that the document included a great deal of administrative detail, as well as policy statements, what we've now done is to try to strip it out. 


And we've distinguished between like (INAUDIBLE) talked about item six, under conclusions and recommendations, where we changed the wording a little bit to say something like the following:  "The Task Force recommends a limited, standardized timeframe, and I've (ph) – something along that language (INAUDIBLE) we can show the feedback we've received that recommends 72 hours.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  You know, Marilyn (ph), I think there are two – as I understand the discussions that have come our of Shanghai, there are two pieces of work that need to be done or run against the report that we've (ph) just (ph) (INAUDIBLE) one is what you're talking about, which is the question as to administrative detail versus principle.  And I think the way you described it, which is to take out some specifics in note that we – in our discussions we have feedback to suggest that a standard period for whatever principles is, you know, in a timely manner that that timely manner be 72 hours.


The second thing is, what you also mentioned, which was the question as to whether the principles (ph) (INAUDIBLE) were again the principles that we put in the report are principles supported by consensus, or principles for which there are divergent views, and hence we either stick them as consensus principles, or work for future consideration.


MARILYN (ph):  Actually, I think there are three, according to what ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, you're right, there's an issues thing in there, as well.


MARILYN (ph):  So, there is consensus.  There's also majority, but no consensus, which we could show.  And then there's ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, hang on, what's the difference between majority and consensus?


MARILYN (ph):  You know, in our conversation with Bruce (ph) yesterday – and Ross (ph), I hope you and Jeff (ph) were still on when that came up, where Bruce (ph) was discussing the fact that we might – there may be something where the Task Force would say, to the Name's (ph) Council (ph), we didn't – because we have to detect not just consensus – you know, part of detecting consensus is reasoned support or reason opposition.






MARILYN (ph):  But, let me go to the third point.  And then there could also be the issue of our having an issue report, which says this is not resolved.  I think there may be one other area that – for instance, this Task Force is probably going to reference dependency on work being done by the Deletion's Task Force, in coming up with a standardized period of deletion ...




MARILYN (ph):  ... because we've been asked to.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  We've been asked to reference it?




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... sorry, can you say that again, about the – this connection with deletions?


MARILYN (ph):  Yes, the Deletion's Task Force agreed to, as (INAUDIBLE) in the Name's (ph) Council (ph).  The Deletion's Task Force was instructed to establish liaison with the (INAUDIBLE) Task Force and the Transfer's Task Force, to ensure that there was consistency between the recommendations, but not duplication of work.


I've just gotten an e-mail from Jordan (ph) noting that they've come up, in their first meeting, with an idea of how that would work, and I'm going to ask Jordan (ph) to come and communicate with us about that, but ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... standardized (ph) – well, I think we ...


MARILYN (ph):  It's a simple thing guys.  Lets not blow it out of proportion here. 




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Again, what is it Marilyn (ph)?


MARILYN (ph):  It would merely be a reference, when we refer to standardized timeframe in deletions that that work is going on in the Deletion's Task Force, and we're not duplicating it ...




MARILYN (ph):  ... but ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So, you're just – you're just scrubbing (ph) away (ph) (INAUDIBLE) terms of reference, even though ...


MARILYN (ph):  Right.






MARILYN (ph):  Minor thing here.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  You know, I just – I didn't track the conversation.


MARILYN (ph):  Got it.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I wasn't disagreeing with it.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Can I come back to my original question to Ross (ph) ...


MARILYN (ph):  Yes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... and that is the work we've just done, on the base document, which he forwarded to us this morning.  Is that – my question to Ross (ph) was whether that document, or whatever (ph) we end up with – whether it has been through the two other processes, being firstly the principle administrative split and the consensus versus majority, versus issues split.  And what I'm hearing is the answer to that is no.   So ...


ROSS (ph):  Well, let me qualify that.  I think I understand your question further, Grant (ph), now that you've asked it, I think, for a third time.  We have split the document into two portions – two major portions – in addition to all of the real (ph) procedure stuff that we need to do.


There is the – here are the findings that we have consensus around.  Here are the recommendations of the Task Force, i.e., the general observations we would like to move forward with this document, and here are the reference implementations that a registrar ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Probably, you know, just note that they are there – I'm not going to call them laudatory statements, but if you go down to number three.  I probably divide a little more surrounds to why we are putting these out.  And we think these (INAUDIBLE) they could be considered by registrars or registers in the development of (INAUDIBLE) conduct or best practice, but we are not presenting them as either, as consensus recommendations, right?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Right.  I think that's captured.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And what I need understand, because I hear you, but I'm not going to take us back to this right now – but under conclusions and recommendations ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... yes, I shouldn't have been so glib, Marilyn (ph), when I said they don't really mean a lot.  They don't have a direct bearing on the policy that we have to implement at the end of the day other than being a guiding principle.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So let's go back to the policy we have to be asked to implement today.  We are trying to say that there 25 , I'm just trying , there are 25 items that we would say make up the new policy.  And much of this I think is maybe viewed by some people as being getting into administrative detail.  I'm not – I'm just trying to understand what is sensible from the consensus standpoint and what isn't.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Just for my benefit – and this is really going to sound like a really political/dumb question.  So I'm going to ask it.  I'm lost when it comes to this administrative, this question of administrative detail.  I can fully understand it in the context of the flow charts, and the "you must do this, you must do that."  Now at the end of the day, my understanding of the definition of policy  is that they are the details that need to be administered.  There needs to be a policy that governs the processes.  So I have a hard time ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... I know.  I know.  Let me try and ask others to comment.  Because I ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... help me out please.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Let's try one of these as an example.  I think that some people – and I really struggled with this, Ross (ph), because what was presented to me on the names council the other day, was the idea that a task force would make a very, very high level statement and then all the detail would be worked out in negotiations with contracted parties which would basically mean starting over from the work the task force has done.


But let me try a policy statement on – so for instance the policy statement on Fix (ph).  All we did on that policy statement there was to re-word this.  To say the task force recommends a standardized limited – I can't remember the exact wording.  The task force recommends a standardized limited time frame for the provision of the registrar's unique off info code.


And so what we did – that would be sort of a policy statement.  So that would be like the first statement here.  And EPT based detailed de-registries, registrars must provide the registrar with the unique off info code within a reasonable time frame.  That would be the policy statement seems to me.  And then we would go on – and we would define reasonable as standardized limited time frame.


Then the administrative detail would probably be viewed as the example of 72 hours.  So that's not a significant change from what we've already done.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Well, if that were a lot of any change at all , I think that's exactly how we've constructed it.  We've made the principle statement and then we've seen it.  The task force recommends 72 hours are a similarly limited period of time.  In other words, we are not wedded to whither it is 72 hours or I guess, you know, 84 hours.  We just put in our recommendation to indicate that we are not talking six months here.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And what I would like to hear from others, Jeff (ph) maybe, you know, – I don't mean to put you on the spot on this, but you know, – what we are trying to struggle with is getting something that we can demonstrate.  It is worded in a way that we are not going to get criticized and that people are actually able to focus on the policy statement.  But we do have twenty, we have this extremely long and detailed document.


I, by the way, since I do policy for a living, tend to think that policy looks more like this than five principle statements.  But I'm struggling with whither we have agreement within the task force and else where, that this in fact is what policy looks like.


GRANT (ph): You know, Marilyn (ph) it's Grant (ph) here.  I mean I – I guess I'm the one who kicked off this discussion.  And I think Ross's (ph) answer to my satisfaction that he thinks certainly the issue of "principle versus detail " has been addressed.  And I think all we need to do now is to perhaps to each of us just to look through the document, perhaps when Ross (ph) re-issued it with that question in mind.


Then we just need to go to the question of consensus versus majority versus outstanding issues or future issues.  I suggest we approach the latter.


MARILYN (ph): Can I just go to the principle versus detail.  And I , I want to be sure that it's not just our view, but it is supportable.  So let's hear from others on the call.


GRANT (ph): Who's on the call that's not us?


MARILYN (ph): Christine (ph)?


GRANT (ph): She is us.


CHRISTINE (ph): That's a good point, Grant (ph).  I am you.


GRANT (ph): Yes, we are the task force.  You outside the task force , Marilyn (ph)?


MARILYN (ph): No, I want to hear from the rest of – sorry , I want to hear rest of the task force.  Sorry.  Who hasn't spoken yet.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: You know, I got called out of my office for a moment and I caught that we are talking about definition of policy versus administrative detail, is that right?


MARILYN (ph): Yes.  This is pretty important, because if we are going to get challenged by ...


GRANT (ph): Oh, I think it is important.  I just suggest the process that doesn't say each of us on the task force review the document as Ross (ph) will re-issue it with that in mind.  And by all means, include your fringe and some others and any work colleagues in looking at it with you.


But have tasks us with coming back with a view.  And if one has a view that a particular statement can be better structured to make the distinction between principle and detail, then so suggest.  That's just my suggestion for process.


MARILYN (ph): Can I just hear from anybody on the call that thinks they are , they need more detail – I mean we had this and had this and had this.  If Ross's (ph) changes aren't going to make a substantive difference in my opinion in a section.  They make some qualitative changes.  Hearing no response I guess we will adopt your approach to it Grant

(ph).  Go to your second question.


 SAFRAN (ph): The only thing that I would say, this is David (ph).  Is, the way I see the difference between policy and administrative detail is what should be done is policy.  How it should be done, is administrative detail.  And you know, if you ask those two questions as to each topic, it seems to fall out whither it's policy or administrative detail.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  Let's try that.  And that means you may end up marking some things that could go in the section that offers an administrative example that the task force is putting forward.  So we don't loose the work the task force has done.  If anything falls in that category.  OK.  But remember the fact that as you look at it – and so for instance, you know, because  you see, we may end up moving the item 19 back into an appendix or put it in a box as an example or something like that.


Any way , let's keep – thank you – Go to your last question , Grant (ph)?  Your third question.


GRANT (ph): Well, I guess I didn't have one.  The only other issue to me is the question and therefore the process to put the document through the split between consensus, majority, and outstanding issues.


MARILYN (ph): I think that process – have people been able to read the ongoing comments, et cetera.  Because I'm still waiting, I think I'm still waiting for comments from the registrar constituency.  Some of the ballots that the registrar constituency was going to do.  And I don't think we've received it , but I could be wrong.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: You are waiting for comments from us for what?


MARILYN (ph): The ballot that the registrar constituency was doing?




MARILYN (ph): I just was asking – we don't have it yet, right?






UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Don't wait for it.  Don't hold your breathe.  To be quite candid about the ballot, I really have no idea on what I'm expected to do with it , if anything.  So I would much rather not distract the task force at this point.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  Then I'm assuming we are operating just on the comments already received.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think that's reasonable.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  Then we need to take the step of doing what ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... or comments you expect to receive.  But I certainly wouldn't put the ballot into that category.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  Then we need to do the process that you've just suggested.  And I would propose we try to do that on Thursday.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Versus what Grant (ph) just suggested?


MARILYN (ph): Yes.




MARILYN (ph): Where do we have – based on the comments that we've gotten and then we put the comments into categories.  Because we have to – Christine (ph) you were doing a summary of some comments?


CHRISTINE (ph): Yes, that' done.  You had asked me to hold off sending it to the list until I got ...


MARILYN (ph): ... yes.




MARILYN (ph): Yes.  Are you far enough along that you feel comfortable sending it?


CHRISTINE (ph): Oh, I'm done.  There weren't that many comments.  I had done it when it was closed.  So there were just a handful.


MARILYN (ph): Could you go ahead do that then?


CHRISTINE (ph): Sure.


MARILYN (ph): Then what else.  What we need to do is there are comments there.  We also got comments of course in the transcripts from several calls.  From various groups.  We probably need to take a look at those and make sure that those are incorporated.  We got comments during the Chang Hi (ph) meeting that we can probably just work from our notes on.  What else in terms of comments does anyone think we need to include?


I'm not – we have – do we have any other reports from any other constituencies forth coming?  Not necessarily it sounds like.  So on Thursday we could work through if we can the document and the comments.  And put them into the category of supporting argument or opposing argument I guess, based on, – and just make sure we have general categories of the support and the objections that we've received.


And on the impact analysis ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Marilyn, question on the objections?  I've spent some pretty good – I spent a pretty good amount of time going through some of these comments ...




UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... some of them are just absolutely – well approaching ridiculous, in that they are being raised as – even if, you know.  I had a real conversation with a real registrar this week that is completely opposed to the draft instrument.  And going through those objections, line by line, by line, by line, spending a good deal of time trying to understand what those objections really were.  There was actually no objections of the draft on your report.


It was a lack of understanding of the draft interim report.  So how are we – are we just forwarding objections as received?  Are we editorializing around them trying to understand them?  Explain them away, like what's the process that we have to go through there?  Because I would be very hesitant to forward objections that are just off based.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  We no choice but forward all submissions.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: All submissions, but ...


MARILYN (ph): ... so any objection we receive, any imput we've got is all going to have to be forwarded.  But the task force does have the responsibility for – I don't really want to use the word editorialize– but that's partly our responsibility to explain whither something is reasoned objection or not.  So if there is an objection and we can note that – for instance we received a letter from 25 people.  And further – that seemed to be totally opposed to the process.  Through further dialog, we determined that – and after offering further opportunity to express their objections, we received no further inquiries.


So we have to do something along those lines.  And we can explain that an objection is not reasoned because it doesn't – it is not responsive to the proposal that's actually made or it was a statement of objection with no clarification , et cetera.  And we are serving it up to the names council and Ross's (ph)probably, excuse me Grant (ph) is probably a good example, but so is David (ph).  David (ph) and Marty (ph) both have to brief their elected representatives of the names council.


Ross (ph) on the other hand has had the honor of having lived through the task force.  So he will have a more – he will have an easier ability to assess the report he is getting.  But most of the folks who are making a decision on this are getting this report feed through their task force representatives and briefed by their task force representatives.


So this has to be relatively stand alone for that reason.  As well as relatively stand alone because of course – once it is approved – let's just say there is track A it's approved.  Track B it's sent back for more work.  Track A, it's approved.  And the names council then forwards it to the board, and the board can approve it or send it back for more work.


In both of those cases, it's still can be appealed by a party or numbers of parties.  And in the appeal process, it will be evaluated by an independent third party review process based on the process that was followed and the documentation that was provided.


I don't know if that's helpful, but that means that it's important to dot the "I's" and cross the "T's."  So, is that helpful?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: No, no.  That makes it very , very clear.  It also I think highlights our need to be incredibly critical of all of these comments that we received for that very reason.


MARILYN (ph): Critic of all imput.  I take your point, but you know, the point as well as concerns ...


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... of all comments.


MARILYN  (ph): Right, right.  Can I just go on?  I'm seeing that we are not going to have received constituency impact reviews.  And so I will make one more call, have Glen (ph) impose one more time, but it seems to me that's unlikely.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: What is the constituency impact review, Marilyn (ph)?  I've been meaning to ask you that.


MARILYN (ph): What is it?




MARILYN (ph): It is a statement from a constituency that says here's how the policy is going to impact on them, would be my assessment.  And I would assume – and Grant (ph) can speak to this.  But I would assume that within the BC, that we would have to draft, they would have to be drafted after this final posting is done.


And I think that would probably be true for the IPC and the IFP's who wouldn't have wanted to spend a lot time drafting something and then they get a final report.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Now isn't that – isn't the what's the word – the importance of that somewhat lessened by the impact analysis that we will be conducting?


MARILYN (ph): And what do you think the impact analysis is?  Sorry.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Last Thursday, we outlined three broad ...


MARILYN (ph): ...oh, yes, yes, yes.  Excuse me.  Yes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So we can very clearly say with the impact on user's registrars or registries without resorting to the views or opinions of the constituency.


MARILYN (ph): Well, actually, my thought is probably , Ross (ph) if we write the impact analysis, that would probably be largely what the user's would respond to and the registrars, and the registries would respond to.


ROSS (ph): Right.  OK, fair enough.


MARILYN (ph): To sort of shortcut this as far as their work is concerned.  We may get minority reports.  If you could find out from within your constituency if we expect minority reports, then I will post an email to you asking you to get back the risk and cost analysis ...


ROSS (ph): Can you put a deadline on that too, if you don't mind.


MARILYN (ph): Yes.  Sorry.  The risks and cost analysis is something that – I'm not sure how we address that because some of the policy recommendations will have cost issues for registrants to implement.  And I – Jeff (ph) I'm not sure if you are feeling is that it also has some cost – it would have cost implications in the appeals process if the registers where involved in it, right?


JEFF (ph): Yes.


ROSS (ph): I would like to reiterate my suggestion from last week, Marilyn (ph) in that we don't try and nail this down to exact dollars.  But we make a statement as to whither the cost are measurable, significant, and /or insurmountable.


MARILYN (ph): I understand but I think if I could ask you and Jeff (ph) to sort of – see I think we have to make a statement and say – it is impossible for us to assess the specific costs.  Again because we are not developing the policy – we are not developing the implementation of the policy, but I think we have to say something here about recognizing that cost maybe involved.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes, and Ross (ph), I don't think I – at least in my thoughts I was not going to quantify at all the cost, but just say there will be costs in doing X, Y, and Z.  And that these need to be taken to consideration.


ROSS (ph): Yes, but you know, I'm really – that's something that I've heard many, many, many, many , many ,many times.  And this is not now – I'm talking on both sides of the argument, they are both in favor of and against this recommendations.  Simply stating that there are costs is ...




ROSS (ph): ... let me just finish.  Simply stating that there are cost does not quantify whither the cost are significant , measurable , and /or surmountable.  And I think it is very important that we make these statements, or don't make , or make statements to the contrary, but to simply say that are costs is – are the big cost, are the small cost, are measurable , are they significant, do you see what I'm saying?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So Ross (ph) what I was saying is – yes I see what you are saying.  What I was saying is – a statement to the affect that if the registry engages in dispute resolution services as contemplated in this report , it will likely have to hire certain personnel or use up X amount of man-hours, you know, would have to have phone lines, it would have – you know, what it would have to have.  These would impose costs.  You know, but give an idea of what specifically will be the cost without saying what the cost are?  Does that make sense?


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: But I think we also make a statement that there is an assumption that cost recovery through some mechanism would be appropriate.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: But it's not a value judgment.  It is not saying that the policy is good, bad, or you know, it shouldn't be adopted, or it should be adopted.  It is just saying the reality, that implementing this policy will have these costs, period.  It is up to whomever is making the value judgment , you know, for the board to determine whither that's reasonable or not.


ROSS (ph): No, I think it's up to the board of the names council to make a determination whither or not our analysis of the situation is correct.  And I don't think that it's unreasonable for us make statements like, we expect these costs to moderate or measurable or ...


MARILYN (ph): ... OK.  but I think we are all in agreement with you on that particular point, but just noting that we have to – we cannot possibility develop the specific costs and are not intending to.


ROSS (ph): Correct.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: But I would also disagree with you.  I don't think the names council is in any position to tell us whither the cost that the registry or registrars think that they are going to have is reasonable or not.


MARILYN (ph): Hey, guys, I don't the names council – I don't think you have to worry about that.




MARILYN (ph): OK.  If we could just go back to what we do have worry about.  And what we may say is , by the way, until there is – until implementation is fleshed out in more detail, the cost associated with some of these recommendations is incomplete or this is not – this is not a true cost analysis.  We just need to think a little bit about that.


ROSS (ph): I'm going to say it again.  I just wanted to reiterate ...


MARILYN (ph): ... Ross (ph)...


ROSS (ph): ... no, no, just let me finish, Marilyn (ph), I'm agreeing with him.  I just want – here is what's going to happen.  We are going to say that we can measure the costs.  We didn't complete a true cost analysis.  Which is true.  The second we do that somebody is going to say, and the task force then tells , admits that they have no idea of what the cost implications of their recommendations are.  And in fact I've got data that indicates that it's crazy huge expensive.


And that's what I'm worried about.


MARILYN (ph): I understand your concern.  I have actually a call that I hope I will get to conclude with the legal counsel of Ican (ph) to note that the risks in cost analysis is very vague.  It was agreed on in terms of the task force requirement a long time ago before there was any real familiarity with policy development within this process.


ROSS (ph):  Great and if we get that that's great.  It makes my entire concern moot.


MARILYN (ph): Sorry.  OK.  I think our biggest, most challenging work item is going be two things between now – it's first of all it's going to be to scrub this with the idea can it be reworded in a way that it's not – can something be reworded in a way that it is clearly only a policy statement and not going to be criticized for being administrivia, OK.


That doesn't mean that an administrative detail needs to get lost, it can be move to an example.  So that would be one thing.  On the resolution of disputes, Jeff (ph), and on the executive summary ...


JEFF (ph): ... yes.


MARILYN (ph): On the resolution of disputes, I think we need to do the same thing on that that I just said, you know, so we need to look at it and say – but I think the resolution of disputes – is it a policy recommendation or is it a recommendation for further work that needs to be done to determine what the mechanisms might be to offer a resolution of disputes.


So the task force is – is the task force policy statement, we recommended that a reasonable, affordably cost, dispute  resolution procedure process be available which could include the following elements.  Do we boil this up to a higher level?  I don't want to loose all the work that's done here.  I'm just trying to figure out whither we can demonstrate consensus to the level of work that's here.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: You know, I think as it relates to all of these things that we have consensus around Marilyn (ph).  We have consensus around the principles.  And if we draw a direct line , almost at metalayer (ph) towards what we feel is supportable by the community, then I think we are fine.  But I don't sense that if we are second, that we have any lack of consensus around the principles.


And as long as we make that clear, I think we are fine.


MARILYN (ph): So, tell me where you would say – in the documents that we would say, here are the principles.  Tell me where you would say in this document ...


ROSS (ph): Oh, right up – four bullet points right at the beginning of page nine.  Let me just see here.  I'm madly screwing up.


MARILYN (ph): No, these terms of reference.


ROSS (ph): Beginning of page eight, ten sorry.


MARILYN (ph): Page, sorry, I'm reading under conclusions and recommendations?


ROSS (ph): Correct.  The task force finds consensus on the five following principles, X, Y, Z, 1,2,3.  That's six but you get the point.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  Yes.  OK.


ROSS (ph): The task force further recommends the implementation of these , what ever is to support these consensus findings, or however we would word it.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  But I still think , Ross (ph) I really think that it's going to be very difficult to demonstrate consensus on the level of detail on the resolution of disputes.  Not on ...


ROSS (ph): Yes, but I think we have consensus on the fact that we need ...


MARILYN (ph): ... yes, that's all I'm saying.


ROSS (ph): Some how to resolve disputes and somehow to reverse transactions.


MARILYN (ph): And I agree.


ROSS (ph): And that's all I'm saying.  That's what we include up front.


MARILYN (ph): OK.  because you got to think about this from the idea that you , you know, think about what we put into a , in a format so we – here's what we have consensus on.  And then here is some additional administrative back up or suggested detail that could be taken into account in an implementation of a policy.


And I'm in particular looking at the resolutions of disputes and thinking about that.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Quick , Marilyn (ph).  Are we trying to on this call now refine this report into principles and associated "administrative detail."  (INAUDIBLE).


MARILYN (ph): No, I'm trying to make sure that as people do their homework assignment that they also look at the resolution of disputes which we had not yet talked about.




MARILYN (ph): OK?  Then I'm through with the things that I wanted to make sure that we covered but let me just go back to – so next Thursday job would be making sure that if we needed to do any re-wording that we come in with language suggested to the extent that we can.  That we come in with the idea that we have the comments that have been received and that includes comments that we received through the trance, through the open call process in our mind and that we can try to organize those into categories, supportive, with objections, concerns.


And then we figure out whither or not we've addressed the concerns.  And we will try to do as much of that as we can.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I'm sorry , did you say next Thursday?


MARILYN (ph): This Thursday.




MARILYN (ph): They are leaving us and not in the position to postpone this.




MARILYN (ph): Yes.  So are we OK for Thursday, then?  But I will get a bridge out.  I'll do it tomorrow morning.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: What time, sorry.  I know you said it.


MARILYN (ph): Something.  Same time.


GRANT (ph): Sorry, what do you mean by the same time?  Is that 4:00PM your time, or 2:00PM your time?


MARILYN (ph): It's 2:00PM my time.


GRANT (ph): OK.


MARILYN (ph): Some God awful time for you.


GRANT (ph): What?


MARILYN (ph): It's probably a God awful time for you.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And how much – this is ballot question.  How much work will we have completed by that point?


MARILYN (ph): You and Jeff (ph) will have concluded – well, I will have concluded a re-draft of the executive summary with Jeff's comments.  I will have written something on that introductory paragraph for a couple of areas.  I will have written a sort of a very rough paragraph for the risks, cost analysis, which tries to layout what we can do and can't do.


And I will do an introduction to the observations.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And what's our publication date?


MARILYN (ph): The week of the 24th.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: The week of , or do we have a specific date we have to hit.


MARILYN (ph): We have to get back to publisher by the 30th.




MARILYN (ph): Because it has to be out 14 days.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Do we have a requirement to accept public comments on the final report?


MARILYN (ph): Yes.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Which means we are not going to make the 14 days if we publish on the first.


MARILYN (ph): No, this a names council publication.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Right but if we revise the report in anyway, shape or form ...


MARILYN (ph): Let me go back to Bruce (ph).




MARILYN (ph): Notice to names council – let me go back to him on this.  We have the notice of the names council, 14 days ahead, that they are going to have to make a decision.


Let me go back – to make the vote.  Let me go back to him and see where he is on this.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK.  another procedural question.  What if any formality do we have to do for close off the final reports from the task force perspective?  So in other words, when we all say it's good, it's good.  Do we vote?  Do we move it on?  Do we just kind hum?  What is the procedure?


MARILYN (ph): I think back to our friend , Grant (ph), – has he gone?


GRANT (ph): Yes, I'm here.


MARILYN (ph): We are going to have do something, some kind of vote within the task force on what we support.  But we don't have to do it on Monday.  We can do it – we are going to have a draft report and then we have to post some kind of recommendation from the task force to the names council.  Which would mean a ballot between the posting of the final report and the recommendation to the names council.


GRANT (ph): And we don't have to vote on Monday, you say?


MARILYN (ph): Oh, no, no.  We will have the final report.  We have to agree to the final report, but we can ballot the final report in the task force, Ross (ph).  We just have to get enough consensus to get a report published.




MARILYN(ph): I'm not assuming that we are going to ballot before – I'm assuming we be able to reach consensus.  And if we – you know, we will be able to get enough agreement to publish.  And then we will have to figure out whither or not we have consensus on particular recommendations or we only have majority or we have minority comments.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Will we have sufficient understanding of the various viewpoints of all the people at the table as to the results of Thursday's or do we need to just formalize that?


MARILYN (ph): I'm sorry.  I didn't understand you question.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Will the results of Thursday's call give us sufficient understanding of the various view points of the task force members, or do we actually need to got through the formal process of a vote.


MARILYN(ph): Probably depends on who shows up on Thursday.






MARILYN (ph): Yes.


GRANT (ph): I have to go.  Can I just confirm two things.  One the call you are talking about is tomorrow?  And two ...


MARILYN (ph): ... no, Thursday.  Oh, tomorrow, what day is it for you today?


GRANT (ph): Wednesday.


MARILYN (ph): Oh, sorry.  The call for you would be Friday, then.  It is the day after tomorrow.


GRANT (ph): OK.  And it starts two hours earlier than this call is now?


MARILYN (ph): It starts at the same time this call did today.


GRANT (ph): Yes, I missed the beginning, I have to say.




GRANT (ph): Two hours prior to the time now.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Two hours to now, yes.


GRANT (ph): OK.  I'll see you in two days time, two hours prior to now.


MARILYN (ph): Thank you.  David (ph) thank you.  Marty (ph) ...

GRANT (ph): ... and Ross (ph), you were just going to re-circulate the report just as you've amended it.


ROSS (ph): Yes, I'm going to make some minor touch ups and get out by the end of today.


GRANT (ph): OK.  Thanks.


ROSS (ph): Like an hour hence.


GRANT (ph): Thanks.


ROSS (ph): Thanks Marilyn(ph).


MARILYN (ph): Thanks.


UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So what's left on today's agenda?


MARILYN (ph): Oh, because just because I haven't hung up or something?  I'm going to call you right back.




MARILYN (ph): We are done, but I'm going to call you right back about who is?




MARILYN (ph): Bye.











We welcome your feedback on this transcript. Please go to or call Elizabeth Pennell at 301-731-1728 x138.