Transfers Task Force

November 19, 2002

Attendees:

Marilyn Cade – Chair

Jeff Neuman
Marty Schwimmer

Ross Rader

David Safran

Christine Russo

JEFF (ph): Hello?

MARTY SCHWIMMER

(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?

SCHWIMMER (ph): (INAUDIBLE).

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?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

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?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Pardon me (ph)?

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.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

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 ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes, that what I ...

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.

CHRISTINE (ph): OK.

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: Sure ...

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: Yes.

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

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

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

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: That would be good.

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: Good idea ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

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: No.

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: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK.

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.