Transfers Task Force Transcript

November 21, 2002



Marilyn Cade – Chair

Ross Rader – Registrar
Jeff Neuman – Registries
Christine Russo – Verisign
Grant Forsyth – NC BC represenrative



OPERATOR:  Conference ID number BMC9810, host name Marilyn Cade. 


MARILYN CADE:  Hi, it's Marilyn.


ROSS (ph):  Hey folks, Ross (ph) here.


CADE:  Hey, it's Marilyn. 


ROSS (ph):  Hey Marilyn.  Is that the, is this a working call?


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  With the transcription?  Oh, you're making me nervous.


CADE:  I don't have the ability to take minutes. 


ROSS (ph):  Ah, OK.


CADE:  And so the only, the only, the only documentation that you have and the rest of the team has for the work that we need, we've agreed to, is the transcription.


ROSS (ph):  Right.  (INAUDIBLE).  So this is a very effective way of turning a multibillion dollar piece of teleconferencing hardware and its related infrastructure into a mailing list.


CADE:  It's actually, I don't want you to be really offensive to our transcriptionists who are going to be listening to you and going, what, why did he refer to me as hardware.


ROSS (ph):  I love our transcriptionists.  That much should be apparent.


CADE:  Hey I am still waiting for, you are the first, you are the first to join this call.


ROSS (ph):  Yeah.  Do I, what do I win?  You ever seen that show "Amazing Race"?


CADE:  You win more time with me.  And the ...


ROSS (ph):  So if you're first to show up in the "Amazing Race" you get (ph) a camera.


CADE:  The first prize would be what?  Someone else just joined us.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Christine (ph).


ROSS (ph):  You were the first one to join Christine (ph).


CHRISTINE (ph):  Imagine that.


CADE:  And Christine (ph) he asked me what he got for his trouble, and I said more time with me.


ROSS (ph):  Since it's last call Christine (ph), I thought I'd defer the honors to you.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Oh thanks.  I was just going to ask if I got a parting gift.


CADE:  There ...


ROSS (ph):  You picked the wrong door for that Christine (ph).


CHRISTINE (ph):  If the first one in gets more time - oh never mind.


CADE:  Christine (ph).


CHRISTINE (ph):  Marilyn.


CADE:  You're going to miss us.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Absolutely.


CADE:  And we're sorry to hear that in fact masochism is spreading.  Well, I am waiting for - you know, let me post, I was hoping to get back from another call I was at, which I'll mention and then it'll go into the transcription, and then the world can read it.  I was just at another meeting where we talked at length about the role of the ITU in the Internet.  And some confusion that is going on about whether or not key elements that participate in the ITU belong, should be, how the role of government gets addressed in the Internet, and in particular in the relation to ICANN.  And it was a fascinating conversation that held me up. 


So I didn't get to continue editing the executive summary, but I made some changes in direction on the executive summary Christine (ph), and I'm going to go in and post it to you guys.  I will finish editing it tonight, but it starts out, and I am going to need some help from others, it starts out by taking in the executive summary a couple of paragraphs at the beginning, and then I would expect to put them in the body, that goes back to the fact that the goal is competition in the registrar business, and movability for registrants, but with some assurances, no, you know, transparency, cost effective, no fraud, those kinds of things. 


And that that's also, that that goal, that that's, that is also a goal for an outcome for the suppliers, being the registrars.  So you guys are going to want to look at my language.  I'm not proposing that I necessarily got the exact language down, but I want to take us back up to why are we doing this?  You know, why do transfers matter?  Transfers are essential to ensure effective competition, and to assure choice to users, and a fair, a fair and balanced competitive environment to the competitive registrars.


ROSS (ph):  I thought it was to line registrars pockets Marilyn.  Oh this is being transcribed, isn't it?


CADE:  It's being transcribed.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Which is why I'm not going to touch that.


ROSS (ph):  I'm not even going to bother qualifying that statement, we're almost out of work.  People don't have ...


GRANT (ph):  Good morning Marilyn, it's Grant (ph) here.


ROSS (ph):  ... people don't have a sense of humor by now, they can - good morning Grant (ph).


CADE:  OK.  So we don't have Jeff (ph), but we are going to go ahead and get started, and I am going to forward this initial draft to Grant (ph) and to Christine (ph). 


ROSS (ph):  Are you ...


GRANT (ph):  Sorry, initial draft of what?


CADE:  I've started editing the executive summary, and it's not completed yet, but I'm taking a different tactic on the first two paragraphs, and I wanted you guys to have a chance to look at it, so I'm going to send it to you right now.


GRANT (ph):  OK.


CADE:  Ross (ph).


ROSS (ph):  Yes Marilyn?


CADE:  You just posted another version.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, it was the one that you've been waiting for, for two days from me, yes.  That which includes a semi-revised version of your executive summary.


CADE:  That my executive summary?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Oh.  That was what, that was going to be my question to you.  So I want to make sure, I've just, I have, I have to pick it up.  Christine (ph) have you seen it?


CHRISTINE (ph):  No, I'm just opening it now.


CADE:  OK.  What we might do is start first of all with the summary that Christine (ph) did of the comments, then go to Ross' (ph) revision, and talk about whether or not, kind of mark this up in relation to where have we gotten comments.  I was hoping that Jeff (ph) would be on the phone.  Did you get input from Jeff (ph)?


ROSS (ph):  Did I?


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  No.


CADE:  OK.  So ...


GRANT (ph):  Well not separate to the call.


ROSS (ph):  Correct.  Correct, yes.


CADE:  Jeff (ph) actually still had editing to do on a section though.  He was supposed to look at his section and think about what needed to be, whether it needed to be edited to be consistent with, because such a, remember much of what he, much of what we've done in resolution of disputes is he needed to a policy statement.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, let me, let me be clear, what I've received from everybody.  Marilyn I've gotten your revised executive summary ...


CADE:  Well ...


ROSS (ph):  I've gotten the task force ...


CADE:  ... well partially, partially.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  I didn't say it was completely revised, it's just, it's revised.  All the input from the call last week, including the two deliverables that Jeff (ph) had following out of that call.  What I've not received in any form really are any of the drafting assignments we put together prior to that call.  So that would include the stakeholder analysis, well Christine's (ph) comments now have been received so that can go in, but those sorts of things.  So anything that we, that fell directly out of last week's call, with the exception of the policy statement surrounding the dispute resolution, has been received.  So apart from that one work item, I believe we're done, what we set out to move (ph) on the last call.




ROSS (ph):  Does that make sense?


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  Good.




ROSS (ph):  Because I don't think I can repeat it, I ended up confusing myself.


CADE:  OK.  Then can we start with Christine (ph).  You haven't heard from Jeff (ph) about whether he's going to participate either, right?


CHRISTINE (ph):  No, I haven't.


CADE:  OK.  Then why don't we just start with what you've been, what you've summarized. 


CHRISTINE (ph):  OK.  I did just a really high-level, didn't get into a whole lot of detail of the comments.  As you can see on the document, there were, there were actually 13 posts.  There's one additional now, but that was just Tim Ruiz (ph) attaching the document that he meant to attach earlier I think.  Of the 13 posts, there were really just five that were substantive comments, and I've got them listed there.  The first one was from Go Daddy and the, I believe there were eight other registrars, and we talked about, that was the letter that we talked about a couple of calls ago.  So that's just a brief summary there. 


ROSS (ph):  Can we, can we just as a point of form, can we refrain from calling them the eight other registrars?  Because that's completely not clear at this point.  Certainly from a constituency ...


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... perspective, we have a one registrar, one vote structure, which means that the 16 or three or whatever the number is, registrars that Verisign for instance has purchased, are not included in the constituency membership.  Which means that, I don't know what that number really is ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Oh.


ROSS (ph):  Given that there is Verisign signing on with three registrars, Go Daddy signing on with two, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 


CHRISTINE (ph):  Oh, OK.


ROSS (ph):  So I'd just like, I don't know, but eight doesn't ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right, I didn't pay attention to that.  So how should I ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CHRISTINE (ph):  ... word it?


ROSS (ph):  I would just say et al.


CHRISTINE (ph):  OK.  Yes.  OK.


ROSS (ph):  I don't want to diminish the fact that there were multiple signatories, but I just don't know how to count them. 


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right.  No, that's a good point.  Danny (ph) then posted a, kind of lengthy synopsis of the consumer complaints that, I'm not sure where he got this.  I have to assume from various sources, and while it was a huge effort on his part, I'm not sure that that added anything new.  But I can't pretend that I read every single one, but I looked at his document for a while, and I think we saw just a lot of the same things that we've all heard.  Not sure we saw anything new there.  


CADE:  Yes but here's - it doesn't, I think there needs to be a little more detail to it in terms of if Danny (ph) posted a synopsis from Tim (ph) and the other registrars, and you're going to make the change you just talked about, you had sort of a summary of the points that were made.  What are the kinds of consumer complaints?


CHRISTINE (ph):  OK.  I can do that.


CADE:  OK, that'd be great. 


CHRISTINE (ph):  Then we saw Scott Hollenbeck's (ph) comments regarding EPP.  We had another post, really just, I think what he was doing was just summarizing in his mind what our proposed policy proposed.


CADE:  Are you talking about number four from Danny Younger (ph)?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right. 


CADE:  So Danny (ph), right.  What Danny (ph) provided was his view of the, what it takes to meet consensus policy, right?  I think it would be, I think what he intended that to be I think, was his interpretation of what it takes to demonstrate consensus policy. 


CHRISTINE (ph):  Actually I think that's number five.


CADE:  Oh, sorry.  Oh, you're right, sorry.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes.  That was, right.  That's exactly what he was talking about in number five. 


CADE:  So what was, how would we characterize ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Pull it out - in number four what I was getting at was Danny's (ph) posting regarding the duty that each registrar has, it's really just his own summary of the policy recommendation that we're putting forth.  And what it means to the registrars.  The registrars having to not prohibit or impose unreasonable conditions or limitations on transfers, et cetera.  I don't see anything in there that is inaccurate or new, it's really just a restatement.


ROSS (ph):  Is this a good time to talk about the letter?  Capital C, capital L?


CADE:  Yes.  Yes, yes.


ROSS (ph):  Because I still don't get the letter. 


CADE:  You're talking about number one?  Well what are you talking about?


ROSS (ph):  Tim's (ph) letter.  Tim's (ph) the letter, yes.


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  I don't see it being based on any sort of reality here that I've experienced on this issue over the last two years, so I'm hoping perhaps that I could get some translation as to what's being said here.


CADE:  Are you asking Christine (ph) for translation?


ROSS (ph):  Hoping that somebody from the task force, I'd like to take a rather progressive view of the nature of this letter.  Difficult given the history with the issue from my perspective, but ...


CADE:  OK, here's what I ...


ROSS (ph):  ... the interest of putting together a good final report, I think ...


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  ... maybe I should take the five minutes it might take to actually understand what ...


CADE:  Sure.


ROSS (ph):  ... they're talking about ...


CADE:  Let's do this.  So right now what we have is, what Christine (ph) has done is comments from the open comment list, but then we also need a summary of the times that we held open calls, in terms of the dates, and Christine (ph) if you would email Glenn (ph) the secretary, and ask her to, you can tell that from the transcripts I think ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right.


CADE:  I think we should list those open calls on this, so that would be comments received from the open comment list, and then there would be further outreach done, and just list the open calls, and the dates, not the content of them. 




ROSS (ph):  What about outreach that we've done to our own constituencies, do we count that or no?


CADE:  Yes, we do. 


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  So then we should have ...


ROSS (ph):  ... I'll try to quantify that for you then Christine (ph).


CADE:  ... constituency outreach, and then we should have task force public meetings.  And I'll go back and look at, for you Christine (ph) on the dates like we did something and didn't update in the craw (ph), we did, and when we did this workshop that we'd want to list with Denise Michelle (ph).  That we just did in Shanghai.  So this would be, then your document would be summary of outreach by the transfer task force, and then it would have, I think it's one, two, three, four, I can identify four subcategories it would have. 




CADE:  The open, the open comment thing you've done, with those changes you're talking about.  The listing of the open calls, and the dates.  The constituency outreach.  And other outreach by the task force.  And oh by the way, we need to put this Sunday meeting in Shanghai on too.  And that would be as insertion that summarizes the outreach.  It just, it just basically lists it, as opposed to ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes, makes sense.


CADE:  OK.  I'm sorry.  Now, someone else joined us.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, it's me.  Jeff (ph).


CADE:  Hi Jeff (ph).  So are you, then Christine (ph) you pretty much know what you're doing to complete that.  That still doesn't bring us to then a final check, which I think Ross (ph) you were referring to, of the kinds of comments we've gotten against our recommendation, and I would put the letter and a few other things into walk, let's walk through the letter and say have, has the task force addressed the kinds of questions that were raised?  And starting with the letter is probably a good, a good place to start. 


ROSS (ph):  I think it's, you know, once I can get to a point of understanding what the letter says, I would guess that it's probably representative of the, any disagreement that we have out there.  Whether it's ...




ROSS (ph):  ... signatories or not.


CADE:  OK.  So do you want to, we just start walking through the letter then?


ROSS (ph):  Do you want me to or?


CADE:  Well ...


ROSS (ph):  Or ask questions of the task force, or?


CADE:  That would work for me.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  Let's start with paragraph one.  Let's go straight to the bullet points, because I think those are the - yes, I don't see anything salient to the, in the other portions of the letter.  So I'm not quite sure how paragraph one, bullet one, hangs together.  We state that, or it is stated that the ACT (ph) policy was predicated on assumed malfeasance, that there's been an argument that fraudulent transfers are less of a problem than gaming, but in fact other people have reported serious problems.  We then jump to a conclusion that states that we've got for the top ten registrars, currently requiring positive confirmation, blah, blah, blah, blah.  I don't follow the logic there, how that hangs together.  It seems to basically use a debatable fact to support a conclusion that may or may not be supported in fact. 


CADE:  OK, let me, let me see if I can ...


ROSS (ph):  ... the concepts on, so if we could ...


CADE:  Let me, let me see, let me see if I can distinguish between two concepts.  Concept number one would be, to me, that the task force in this discussion broadly agrees that transfer procedures should not facilitate, should not enable or facilitate or result in the creation of fraudulent transfers.  That's the kind of a principle backing up leave the letter alone, back up.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  That's the whole purpose of our trying to have a procedure.  There is no support anywhere in the task force or elsewhere for fraudulent transfers.


ROSS (ph):  So then, if I could then, so what you're saying then is regardless of the logic, and whether or not the statement is factual or not, as long as the task force has addressed the principles appropriately, then fraud is dealt with as a by-product.  And it is, so therefore irrelevant. 


CADE:  No, I'm not ...


ROSS (ph):  No?


CADE:  ... no I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that a principle of the task force I think supported, and supported by the broad community, is a concern about fraudulent transfers.  The question of the, whether there is a high number of fraudulent transfers, or fraudulent transfers are facilitated by an existing practice, it's still to be documented.  This letter raises one input, provides one input, given it is signed by eight of the registrars, this letter raises one input that says there's a very high concern, and certain registrars believe it is a high enough problem that they are behaving in a, in a particular way. 


The task force then would need to comment on have they heard significant numbers of reports about fraudulent transfers, does the ICANN staff support in their report to the task force that there are very high numbers of fraudulent transfers?  Is there documented evidence of fraudulent transfers in terms of the numbers of referrals the ICANN staff or others have made to legitimate fraud authorities in - do you see what I mean?  And lacking that, can these registrars present documented evidence which could, or documentation which could support the position they're taking?


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  That would be how I would propose to address it.  Because it's an input, we have a principle, I think.  We need to articulate that principle, and throughout our outreach there's no support for fraudulent transfers.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, of course.  OK.  All right, I'm with that.  And, you know, for everybody else, I really apologize for sounding thick.  This is not some ...


CADE:  Ross (ph) ...


ROSS (ph):  ... articulated exercise that I engage in, I really do want to put this stuff to rest mentally with ...


CADE:  I think it's more than that.  I think that it's our obligation to walk through this letter and say have we addressed it?


ROSS (ph):  OK.


JEFF (ph):  Which, I'm sorry.  Is this the original letter we got, or is this a new one?


ROSS (ph):  This is the letter.


JEFF (ph):  The only letter, OK.


ROSS (ph):  It's the - yes.  I'm sorry Jeff (ph).


GRANT (ph):  Why are these ...


JEFF (ph):   ... my fault ...


GRANT (ph):  ... now which the letter are you referring to from whom?


ROSS (ph):  From Tim (ph) et al to the ...


GRANT (ph):  Tim (ph) et al.


ROSS (ph):  Tim Ruiz (ph).


CADE:  Ross (ph) the easiest thing to do would be for us to refer the task force to the date it was posted to the archives, so they have it in front of them.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, I don't even know.  I don't have it in front of me.


CADE:  Looking, I'm looking. 


GRANT (ph):  Is it relevant?


CADE:  Well ...


GRANT (ph):  I mean, do we ...


CADE:  I think we can actually work from these bullet points while I'm looking for it, and we can just keep going.  But this is a, this is a, this could, this would be viewed by everyone.


GRANT (ph):  Wait, no I've read the letter.  Yes, OK.




ROSS (ph):  You found it?


GRANT (ph):  No, no, no.  I do recall reading it where he was saying basically all our emphasis on trying to create a smooth, as it were a legitimate transfer process overlooked the fact that the real problem is fraudulent transfer.  And by providing an offer ACK process, we were going to be essentially facilitating fraud.


ROSS (ph):  Right.


GRANT (ph):  Yes.


CHRISTINE (ph):  The link to it was posted on November 12th on the public comment list.


CADE:  Right.


GRANT (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  So my second question about the letter now is in bullet number two, and the question I have is pretty straightforward.  Was it within the scope or not to come up with a transfer process to protect the registrants against unscrupulous marketing practices?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Not specifically, but I think it's sort of a given.  I think it fits. 


JEFF (ph):  Wait, the comment is what have we done to stop unscrupulous marketing?


CHRISTINE (ph):  No, I think, Ross (ph) is your question whether or not that was in our - sorry, what was your question?


ROSS (ph):  Just whether it was, whether it was within scope for this task force or not ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  That's what I thought.


ROSS (ph):  ... to be dealing with this ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  And I think so.


ROSS (ph):  ... the question.


JEFF (ph):  Oh I don't think at all.  I think it's not a topic for us to talk about at all.  Unscrupulous marketing is just not a ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Well to the extent that it results in a fraudulent transfer, which is what the letter's talking about, I think it does.


JEFF (ph):  No.  No, I don't think so.


CADE:  Jeff (ph), I need to understand this, because what I thought this question was, directly related to fraudulent transfers maybe being led to by deceptive information in the transfers notice.


ROSS (ph):  Well yes, where my question is going, and it certainly, that ties directly into it Marilyn.  Where my question is going is the statement the transfer processes should protect consumers, et cetera.  Now my read on that, my intent around that as a member of this task force now for far too long is that transfer processes should enable portability.  And like this, so we've got some broad principles.  And I don't, I don't know if one of them was protect consumers.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Well hold on then.  If it wasn't within our scope, then why did we put all that language in our, in our proposal about sending (ph) market materials ...


CADE:  You know guys, here, here, here.  I think I understand the problem.  I think what we've gotten ourselves into is actually we bought into a mislabel.  Let's back up for a minute.  Let's just set aside the question of consumer protection, just move that label aside.  Christine's (ph) point I think is the important point here.  Transfers are supposed to facilitate approved, agreed to - Christine (ph) I'm making this up - transparent cost-effective transfers, but not to lead to mistakes or fraud.  So if the information that is provided to the registrant is fraudulent or misleading, or deceptive, that could lead to other kinds of, other kinds of problems.  I think, it's not a ...


ROSS (ph):  OK, I get it.  OK.


CADE:  ... it's not a question to (INAUDIBLE), it's getting factual, honest, direct instructions and information. 


ROSS (ph):  So then the question I'd have for the group then is, in my mind one of the key pieces of what we, of the recommendations we made, that to address this concern, was the standardized form of authorization.


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  Did we go far enough, not far enough, with that?


CADE:  Why don't, why don't we flag that and come back to it, because that may be one of those things where we have a laudatory recommendation to, where we probably, we probably cannot say that there is consensus on what the language should be. 


JEFF (ph):  Can I make a point here?  I think, I think there's two different issues, and we need to be careful.  We do provide for a mechanism, or we do address a mechanism to, or we do state that there should not be unauthorized transfers and we do provide a dispute mechanism for unauthorized transfers.  But I think as far as, that's as far as we go.  I don't think we should address anything with marketing practices or ...


CADE:  Jeff (ph) ...


JEFF (ph):  ... so it's - wait a minute, hold on Marilyn, because this is a very important point.  And if we don't address, if we, if we make it too broad, then it's not going to be accepted.  And my goal is to hopefully have our recommendations, any one that we put forward is to be accepted, and not thrown out, or not have someone like Roger Cochetti (ph) argue it's beyond the scope of ICANN's authority.


CADE:  OK.  Back ...


JEFF (ph):  So ...


CADE:  ... back up just a minute.  We took input from a wide number of people, including from some individuals who complained about receiving notices that misled them and led them to undertake a transfer because they thought one registrar, because they misunderstood the communication.  Those were complaints that we got, otherwise people wouldn't have bothered ...


JEFF (ph):  Sure.  We got a lot of complaints, I understand that.


CADE:  So ...


JEFF (ph):  So the way we address it is through our specific recommendations but without using the words protecting consumers against marketing, any like that, in other words ...


CADE:  I just I, that's exactly what I said.  I thought ...


JEFF (ph):  Well, hold on, let me finish for a second.  So in other words, when we say a registrar must be clear in its, whatever it sends to the registrant, when we say things like, you know, there should not be unauthorized transfers, that's what addresses it, not - and I don't think we should make it any broader than that.  I know we received complaints, but it's not really our, I don't think it's our task force's role to comment on the marketing practices or even address those marketing practices, but really to set out a transfer process that encourages portability. 


CADE:  And what's your proposal for what the task force should say about the complaints that were received, and what the ICANN staff ought to be doing in dealing with them?


JEFF (ph):  I would say that, my own view is that we don't, we say we received these complaints, OK, because we have to say what we received.  And the recommendation to the ICANN board is that, you know, that's beyond ICANN's jurisdiction to specifically address the marketing practices, however by improving the transfer process, you know, in other words the few things that we have in there, we think that the, that that will decrease.


CADE:  OK I ...


JEFF (ph):  ... or it may decrease.


CADE:  ... OK, you're using a phrase that I don't agree with, and let me just see if I can edit the phrase and if you and I can come closer to agreement. 


JEFF (ph):  OK.


CADE:  But why is it beyond ICANN's responsibility in either contact enforcement or in accreditation to require truthful notices?  I'm not saying misleading, I'm saying truthful.  Why is it beyond ICANN's responsibility to take action or to respond by referring complaints to a consumer protection authority if they receive complaints that people that they accredit are sending non-truthful notices to registrants?  So I'm not, I'm not saying, you're saying marketing practices, and I'm not talking about marketing practice.  And I think that's where you and I are not talking, I think about the same thing.  I'm talking about sort of being truthful in the notices, and if people complain that the notices that they receive are not truthful and factual, why is it not ICANN's responsibility to investigate, refer them to the new complaint mechanism, or to refer them to a fraud authority, which is what they're doing right now?


JEFF (ph):  Well I think there's a couple different examples, and if there was a message from a registrar that said, you know, I'll use a fake, and EPP registry.  If it was a message from a registrar that said you are not entitled to your authorization code, or something like that, that is something, that's not a marketing practice, that is something that is absolutely in ICANN's realm.  If it's something like a Verisign notice that they used to send out before the lawsuits, that says, you know, renew your, renew your email address and it provides in very small writing or not at, or not at all, who that registrar is, that's something that we as a task force, or ICANN is not in their jurisdiction to address.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, and ...


JEFF (ph):  That's a court and consumer protection agency.


ROSS (ph):  Jeff (ph) to jump in ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  If that's the case, why did we put that provision in our proposal that says that marketing communications have to be done separately?  I mean, we're getting into it by doing that.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, but what I think, you know, if we could go, move away from the form for a second folks, and strictly deal with the substance.  I think we have broad agreement on these statements in the document now.  So even if there's minor, the views, differing views on the, you know, the world view, I don't think that's quite important at this point, at this stage.  And I've got my answer, because I'm hearing that we do seem to provide adequate protection and redress for registrants.  So my question is fully ...


JEFF (ph):  Yes, but what I'm saying is when we address their complaint, because their complaint is a lot broader, especially, you know, it's a lot broader than what we, the steps we take.  I mean their complaint is, and because they've been involved in lawsuits and things like that, you know, I don't want to answer it that we have addressed the unscrupulous marketing practices.  I think the way we answer that is we have set up a system of transfers that is meant to as best we can within ICANN's jurisdiction, this is not the right words, but ...


ROSS (ph):  No, but Jeff (ph) we can do that in addressing the last sentence of that bullet, and ignoring the first two, because I think the first two is just set up, and the real substance lies in that last sentence.  And by stating how we provide adequate protection and redress for registrants, we can avoid the question of marketing practices wholly, because we as a task force obviously don't see eye-to-eye on that question, nor do we necessarily deal with it, just agree that this letter implies that we do.  See what I'm saying?


JEFF (ph):  Right.


ROSS (ph):  So I think it's just, it's a ...


JEFF (ph):  I think that's right.  As long as we avoid those first couple of sentences, because I don't, I don't want the term unscrupulous marketing practices anywhere in this document, except for the fact that we received a complaint, that that said that.  But I don't, because the second you put we have addressed or something to that effect, we have addressed unscrupulous marketing practices, I mean I can tell you right now that there are going to be some people, and Christine (ph), no offense to Roger (ph), but that's type of sentence that he likes to grasp on to. 


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right.


JEFF (ph):  So, you know, we've worked way too hard to have people look at some inflammatory language and single that out.


ROSS (ph):  Is it safe to move on with my next question at this point?


JEFF (ph):  Sure.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Why not, that one was so much fun.


ROSS (ph):  Marilyn do I have your blessing as ...


CADE:  You certainly do.


ROSS (ph):  Thank you.  OK, so this is a big one, because it's been brought up in a number of forums and in a number of different contexts.  The question of we don't deal effectively with the issue of a parent authority.  And I would submit, and without looking at the rest of this paragraph that that is indeed correct in saying we don't deal with a parent authority, we don't deal with it all.  As a matter of fact, we've completely pushed that off the table, and created a much more limited set of circumstances for individuals by identifying a very limited set of individuals that can authorize or not authorize a transfer.


CADE:  But Ross (ph), I think we actually have to say, we have to remind people that we discussed the parent authority at great length, including having a briefing by the general council.


ROSS (ph):  Right, let me get to my question ...


CADE:  OK, good.


ROSS (ph):  ... it was leading to my next sentence, so where in this, where in this document, if anywhere, are we leading people to believe that a parent authority is still in play?


JEFF (ph):  Actually I can answer that, we don't.  We try, we basically in our document, and I think this is a good idea by the way, we get rid of the notion of a parent authority and we define the only people with authority to act on the registrants behalf ...


CADE:  Right.


JEFF (ph):  ... is the registrant or admin contact.


CADE:  Right.


JEFF (ph):  And I think that's the way we address it, that we could say in a paragraph saying the notion of a parent authority is extremely complex but extremely vague and leaves too much of an opening for abuses of the transfer system.


CHRISTINE (ph):  I would absolutely agree with that.  That was much of the problem in the old, well in the existing ...


ROSS (ph):  In the good old days.


CHRISTINE (ph):  ... agreement was that term of ...


JEFF (ph):  Right.  So I think the way we address it is we, like you did Ross (ph) I think in one of the emails is we addressed it by getting rid of it.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  OK.  So we need to, OK, so we need editorial around that essentially then?


JEFF (ph):  I think so, yes.


ROSS (ph):  Where do we, where do we stick that in, does that go under the executive summary Marilyn or into one of the observation categories or?


CADE:  Well I think, I think actually when we do this we need to have a summary of the, I think we probably need to put it in, in a couple of places, but I completely agree with how it was characterized that we respond and we probably need to just flag it, it needs to go into our responses to the objections, and then maybe be mentioned one other place and I will, I'll make myself a couple of notes, but that would be my suggestion.


JEFF (ph):  Yes I think Marilyn, I think you're right, I think putting it - it's also a statement in the exec sum ...


CADE:  Right.


JEFF (ph):  ... to pointing it out to the people who read it ...


CADE:  Right.


JEFF (ph):  ... is, you know, the existing contracts say, whatever it says ...


CADE:  Right.


JEFF (ph):  ... parent authority, you know, we have taken many comments on, exhaustive comments on this and have come to the conclusion that the notion of a parent authority is so vague and complex as to lead to, or which has led to many abuses, whatever, therefore the taskforce has, you know ...


CADE:  Right.  Right, right, therefore our recommended solution addresses who has authority, rather than trying to deal with the definition of what a parent authority is.


JEFF (ph):  Right.


CADE:  OK, got it.


ROSS (ph):  OK. 


CADE:  And then Jeff (ph), you and I, when we keep working on the executive summary we'll capture that.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  OK, I don't know what to do with the next bullet. 


JEFF (ph):  Nothing.


ROSS (ph):  It's right, it's wrong, no I'm just speaking factually from a registrar procedure (ph) perspective, we had the first batch of the results of our ballot came back, and we had less than a 40 percent participation rate in the community.  I don't even know what, I don't know what to think of what the registrar constituency thinks right now so I'm going to let you guys tell me when I'm acting outrageously ...


CADE:  You there's, my comment ...


ROSS (ph):  ... I just, I'm at a loss.


CADE:  ... my comment to this is going to be, constituencies are responsible for decision making within their own constituency should they decide to vote or use other mechanisms.  So I don't think the task force needs to comment on how a constituency makes a decision.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, I mean basically the task force is not in a position to sort out the internal matters of an individual constituency.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, know what, I guess what I'm saying guys is that the, I'm very much admitting somewhat of a defeat on this front.


CADE:  I don't think this is ...


ROSS (ph):  ... just let me finish.  That I can't seem to get to where the constituencies' hearts and minds are ...


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... now I'm not saying that's a personal agenda, I'm just, it's a defeat.  What I'm warning you guys against is that I don't want that dynamic in any way to endanger the work that we've, that we've ...


CADE:  We don't, look Ross (ph), we may find ourselves in a situation, I was going to talk about this later, I'll talk about it now.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  We may find ourselves in a situation, it is not my goal and I - not anyone else's goal on this task force and I know that, given the nature of what is before the, everybody, I think we have to put forward in good faith our recommendations and hope that the names council is in a position to themselves take a vote at the Amsterdam meeting.  And we'll, we would then deal with the, with the outcome of that one way or the other. 


If the names council for any reason decides it can't take a vote on any part of a report from a task force, or on a report from a task force, the process would be that the report goes back to the task force for further clarification or to dot another I, cross another T, but then a vote would be scheduled immediately thereafter, I believe, from my conversation with, my understanding of talking to the names council chair.  So it would, it would not be, go back and do huge amounts of more work and start over, it would be after these four questions, please get this back to us, or ...


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  ... three questions, or two questions or one.


ROSS (ph):  OK, I really just raised that little point, and taking it to the dynamics simply because I don't know what to make of it, and I'm hoping that you guys can.


CADE:  Well we, just so you don't feel bad, we have lived through this at the names council on the dot org report a couple of times as well, with people not knowing and Grant (ph) was on that but I think there were a couple of times where some people on the names council weren't quite clear of what timeframes were for other decisions, and so we had a long sorting around actually on a names council call to try to figure something out before we could take a vote.


ROSS (ph):  Fair enough.  Moving on.  Could somebody help me understand why it would be inappropriate for the names council to recommend the staff change the agreements?


CADE:  Oh I, significant changes are necessary to agreements ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... I actually am taking that merely as a factual statement, and I believe this task force understands that and has been supported by the analysis that the staff initially did and then corrected, and we posted.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  So ...


ROSS (ph):  So it's, through consensus policy development, it is indeed appropriate and I'm not missing anything, OK.


CADE:  Wait, let me ask others but yes we, yes the task force understands.  Significant changes are necessary to the existing agreements in order to effect the policy changes recommended by this task force report.  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  All right, let's just, right?


ROSS (ph):  You're asking the other people, I'm sorry ...


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... I keep responding, I'm sorry.


CADE:  Yes.  We all understand that, right?


CHRISTINE (ph):  I would agree with that.


CADE:  OK.  And then significant changes to registrar registry systems.  I think that in the, in the analysis of cost impact which we talked about on our last call saying we can't, we can't quantify all the areas of cost, we need to acknowledge that if there are significant changes to registrar registry systems in order to implement certain changes, that there will be system designed development implementation costs associated.


ROSS (ph):  Yes and, you know, I actually didn't have a question about that one ...




ROSS (ph):  ... it was just a comment that it's very difficult for us to, as you know, to quote in the immortal words of Marilyn Cade, to take into account proposals and commentary that we don't have the benefit of, so.  In other words, you know, these must be taken into account prior to making changes, well what?


CADE:  And it, but it would seem to me that we could say something about, in the implementation process that what we've tried to do is lay out objectives that should be accomplished in a transfer process, and we expect in the implementation process that discussion would take place between the staff and the contracted parties regarding the cost of implementation.  Now here's my question to the task force, and this was the subject of quite a bit of discussion on the last names council call.  Grant (ph), you're still on?


GRANT (ph):  I certainly am.


CADE:  I maintained that if in the course of this discussion, significant changes are proposed to the policy recommendations that have been put forward, that there should be a return to the names council for consultation before the, before significant policy changes that deviate from what was approved, you know, just assume we put this forward, it's approved by the names council, it goes to the board, it's approved by the board, the board assigns it to staff to implement, negotiations on implementation begin, in the course of negotiation a significant shift in a different direction that will affect the outcome emerges from the discussion between staff and affected parties.  I maintain that the, that should be returned, I'm not saying ship it back wholesale but that there should be a return for consultation to names council if it alters the recommendation of policy.


ROSS (ph):  As a point of process there Marilyn, it strikes me that there will have to be instructions from the names council to the board, wouldn't it?  So we may, we may be able to make that recommendation to the names council, but I can't see it going much further than that, as a task force I mean.


CADE:  I think the, I think the task force, the dot org task force put forward a recommendation, something like that


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... right Grant (ph)?


GRANT (ph):  That's correct, and part of that recommendation was that they also be involved in reviewing the final, I guess it was RFP.


CADE:  Yes.


GRANT (ph):  And I think the board accepted that and dot org, it did come back to the names council.


ROSS (ph):  But not to the task force directly.


GRANT (ph):  Well the task force I think is being expanded by that ...


JEFF (ph):  OK, yes ...


GRANT (ph):  ... and I thin that's all Marilyn is saying, it's come back to the names council, it's up to the names council as to how they deal with it, whether they put it ...


JEFF (ph):  This ...


GRANT (ph):  ... put it to the task force or deal with it themselves.  I would just say I think, I think it's a good idea.  I don't hold a heck of a lot of hope for it, the concept of certain staff members, most of them working for very large law firms admitting that whatever they negotiate, quote unquote, affects an outcome.


JEFF (ph):  I would, this is Jeff (ph), I'm actually, and it's probably predictable, I'm actually against that.  I ...


GRANT (ph):  What are you against Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  I'm against the names council being involved in approval of a contract ...


CADE:  That ...


GRANT (ph):  No, no, no.


CADE:  ... and that's no, no, no.  That's ...


JEFF (ph):  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, let me ...


CADE:  Wait, wait, wait, Jeff (ph), it's important you understand what's being recommended.


JEFF (ph):  I do.  Let me restate it and you tell me if I'm right or wrong, OK?  What you're saying is if during the negotiations it turns out that there is what, a significant difference, whatever that means, in what comes out in the negotiations that you would like the matter before, I guess before signing, you'd like the matter to go back to the names council to consider.


CADE:  In part ...


GRANT (ph):  No.


CADE:  ... a significant change in policy.


GRANT (ph):  Yes, in policy outcome.


JEFF (ph):  But if there were a significant, see ICANN's little bootstraps on this, because if they were to recommend a significant change in policy they wouldn't be allowed to do that.  I mean the ICANN staff is not allowed to change the policy, they're going to have to negotiate what was the policy that came out ...


CADE:  But Jeff (ph), but in this case they're only negotiating with the contracted parties, consensus policy has been developed in a different and broader process.  That's the only point we're making, and we're not talking about approval of the contracts, we're talking about, at least I think, and you know, I think it's better to use dot org Grant (ph), as an example because you guys boiled this several times before you got to something that was really about policy as opposed to about implementation.  I mean you really worked through it.


GRANT (ph):  Well, certainly there was the original thought that the task force would have the, or wanted the opportunity to review the actual request for proposal, which if you like is a form, protect I guess, it's not really but anyway, it's a document, and that was, I think, well that actually happened in the end.  We asked for the opportunity for the names council to review the, as I said the requested proposal, to ensure that the policy objectives of the task force were properly articulated in that document.  And that is to say that was accommodated.


JEFF (ph):  I guess I ...


GRANT (ph):  Yes, but hang on Jeff (ph) you are right, that's a different thing to getting into the negotiation between two parties being ICANN and whomever else, and I've a contract wording and I think that thought was rejected, and I don't think Marilyn is suggesting that.  I think it really comes back to, let's say in implementing the policy and negotiating that implementation, changes come about which make it pretty obvious that the policy objective, let's say for some standardized notice period gets watered down or whatever, then the request would be that that matter being a standardized period, not the contract or anything else, comes back to the, comes back to the task force or comes back to the names council, right?


JEFF (ph):  And then what would the names council do?


GRANT (ph):  Well ...


JEFF (ph):  I guess that's where it gets fuzzy, because you've got to go the step further.  So names council ...


GRANT (ph):  Tell you what, what it would do.  Let's presume we stick to that as a principle ...


JEFF (ph):  Right.


GRANT (ph):  ... and we put it out to the board, and the board accept our policy, well our policy advice or whatever recommendation.  Now if it turns out that they, in the form that they're doing things, they're not able to accommodate that, then I think that does need to come back for public consultation.  Because we may want to go back to the board and say OK, well you know, we've consulted and we looked for this certain thing and we think, you know, if that becomes a sticking point for some, whatever reason, in implementation, we may have to put that aside and go for some other avenue to achieve some sort of a surety, whatever it is we're trying to seek in policy, or we might just go back and say, you know, we've reviewed it, we've taken comment on it and you as the board and staff need to understand the degree of importance of this policy objective.


JEFF (ph):  I guess the way as a, you know, changing my hat from a task force member to a contracted party member, it's hard enough to negotiate with ICANN staff and board, and then to have the names council on top of it, which ...


CADE:  You're not, you're not negotiating with us.  And that's why it would be ...


JEFF (ph):  But wait, wait, wait, Marilyn, let me say ...


CADE:  ... sure that that's understood.


JEFF (ph):  Let me finish, because the practical effect, I mean you can't just, you got to take the, you got to take the statement and then carry it out to its logical steps.  So let's say for example that the ICANN board, you know, likes the 72 hours or doesn't like the 72 hours, they negotiate with the contracted parties, the contracted parties say you know what, that should be ten days rather than three days, which is I think what's in there for the auth codes.  That's, that could be considered by people on the names council as a significant difference, it could be.


CADE:  But, wait, wait, wait ...


JEFF (ph):  Wait, wait, wait, hold on ...


CADE:  ... it's not a good example because ...


GRANT (ph):  Hang on Marilyn, let him finish.


CADE:  Sorry.


JEFF (ph):  I mean I'm just taking one detail out ...


GRANT (ph):  Yes, yes.


JEFF (ph):  ... of the report, OK?  Because the policy is a reasonable time right?  So the names council gets the issue back and says you know what, three days is, or ten days is not a reasonable time, our policy was a reasonable time and we think anything under, you know, anything three days, over three days is not a reasonable time.  You know, now the contracted party, I'm in essence, and then you send instructions, the names council sends instructions up to the board saying no, ten days is not acceptable.  So ultimately what ends up happening is now the names council is getting involved in the negotiations.


GRANT (ph):  Jeff (ph), can I suggest a different blush on that if I may?


JEFF (ph):  Sure.


GRANT (ph):  When you, when the staff goes to implement the policy and let's say, let's just take that example, seeing we're sticking with it moment, and we recommend a standard days period, that's the first principle, and we've given further indication of that being 72 hours.  If the staff are doing their job in my view, that's where they should start from.  That's the first point.  The second point is you as a contracting party better understand where that 72 hours came from.  It didn't come out of the back pocket of some staff member, it came from the task force, the names council. 


So if you're going to pick on that particular point to argue and negotiate the hell out of, understand that are potentially setting yourself up for a significant change.  And that may well result in the staff saying well hang on look, you know, you and I can agree between 72 hours and ten days, and if you're insisting on ten days, that point will have to go back to names council, so you are right, it does focus the minds of the contracting parties, both the staff and in this case I guess the registry's registrars, on those particular aspects. 


The second think I would say is if, you know, you said yes, but as a contracting party you put forward very good arguments as to why it should be ten days and not three, and the staff say well you know, now that you've said that I really do understand that, and yes it is a significant change, and I think we need to send it back to the names council with explanation, and they, so they do that.  And it may be that the real aspect that we the task force, from our work and deliberation on this matter, what we are really, really, really, really seeking is quote a standardized time, and the difference between three and ten days may not be the significant difference. 


What may be to us to be the significant difference is that registrar A versus registrar B not be on different timeframes.  And so we might go back to names council and say look, you know, we could live with ten days, as long as every bloody registrar had ten days.  So that, so that from a consumer point of view, there was a surety, certainty as to a period, let's say.  And with that clarification, you know, the thing might go ahead.  Now we've talked about a thing which is hopefully reasonably cut and dried, but that's where I think it's not a bad process.  Does that make better sense?


JEFF (ph):  Yes.  It makes sense, but in essence what it does, and then you say it basically is, it creates another party to negotiate with in the end. 


GRANT (ph):  You're damn right it does.  And that's what, I mean unfortunately we are talking about, from your point of view, contracting parties contracting into a public policy process.  Now if you, if you contract with governments say, you know, they have similar external influence on their abilities to contract, which are woollier and greater and fuzzier than private parties do.  So yes, I mean that's just the nature of the area of the market that people are choosing to work in.


CADE:  And let me just ask a question Grant (ph), because that's actually a very good question.  There actually is an option to contracts it seems to me, we could, there could be legislation or regulation in every country, which governed these kinds of things.  And it would, it would likely in that case not be uniform, country by country, and would probably be very onerous to the registrars to try to comply with it.


GRANT (ph):  Yes, I don't know, I don't - and how that applies to a detailed E (ph).


CADE:  Well I was just saying that if that one of the advantages that, of having a contract with ICANN has been the ability to avoid having to be authorized to do business as a registrar, country by country.


GRANT (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Right but that's, yes but that's a different concept than who you, who you're negotiating with.  I mean, we're not negotiating with the, when we negotiate a contract, we're not negotiating with the public as a whole, or the Internet community.  We're negotiating with the body that's there to represent the Internet community, and they're doing it in a way, you know, that they believe is best ...


CADE:  Jeff (ph) you ...


JEFF (ph):  ... they're putting out position ...


CADE:  ... OK look.  You've identified a concern, and what you're hearing from other people on the task force so far is that, I would say two things.  I think you are talking about the exception other than, rather than the rule, in that you're presenting this as it could happen really often and be really onerous and be really a serious problem, and I think that the concept of that, if that were the outcome, I would suspect that people on the task force would agree with you that that is not the intent in any way, nor would that outcome be supported by the task force.  That you would be negotiating the contract with the names council.


JEFF (ph):  Right.  Here's what I would support.  I would support the notion of if the board decides to change the policy recommendations put out by the task force, in that process, when they approve it, then it goes back to the names council.  But once it goes to negotiations between the contracted parties and ICANN staff, at the direction of the board, at that point I would oppose, and I think the contracted, most of the contracted parties, would oppose anything going back to the names council after that stage.


CADE:  Yes, I'm going to say two things, and then I'm going to make an assignment and I'm going to, two assignments and then I'm going to move on.  What you just said actually already, I believe is required, but we ought to say that if it's not.  And that is if the board changes, I believe elsewhere that we have said, if the board changes, it ought to go back to the names council.  That we have said elsewhere that the board should not be changing, they should refer their questions back to the names council to fix those outstanding areas.  So we should make sure we've captured that. 


Secondly, I will make two assignments.  You should draft the language that you just said, and I'm going to ask Grant (ph) to capture the other concept of this, what I'm calling the exception concept, and the referral back to the names council.  And I'd ask each of you to draft a paragraph that describes, so option A, option B, and the task force will need to talk more about it.  And they may, it may end up that Jeff (ph), that there is a, that this would be one of the, I don't mean to call it a minority opinion here, but this may be one of the areas where some members of the task force support, other members of the task force don't.  OK?  But that gives a way to capture it.  Is that acceptable to you?


GRANT (ph):  No, it sounds fine to me.  Let me just say that I think the suggestion that Jeff (ph) has, has merit.  And I do see the distinction that he's drawing there, that if the board has given its stamp to policy, then one may question the process, a process which suggests further down the track a matter come back over the top of the board, which essentially it would do if you talk about going to the names council.  So let me think on that, but I'm happy to do what you are suggesting Marilyn.


CADE:  OK.  The second thing is that you actually have to think on it anyway, because of the appeals process, where the board could be overturned by the, by a appeal. 


GRANT (ph):  And when do we think the appeals process is going to come to fruition?


CADE: The way it works right now, as I understand it is, let's just say task force approves something, recommends it to the names council, names council approves it, recommends to the board, board approves it, sends it to the staff for implementation.  In this process parties get together and file a appeal, getting some of my terminology wrong.  And an independent entity is asked to evaluate whether the appropriate consensus policy process was followed.  If it is to be sent back to the names council, not to the board, if they find that it was not, at least that's my understanding, and I'll go back and look at the process, so it would be remanded back for redevelopment as opposed to fixed on the spot.  Do you see what I mean?


GRANT (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  I don't know, I believe I'll go look at the, at the new policy process, but I'm pretty sure that that is ...


GRANT (ph):  Well just hang on, that's what I'm saying.  Is that this is a new policy process, is this part of ...


ROSS (ph):  No actually Grant (ph) the last part is actually in the contracts. 


GRANT (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Rather than the new policy process. 


GRANT (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  And in the new ...


GRANT (ph):  Can I say that, I just wouldn't really care to give a second thought to that.  I mean if it happens, it happens, it happens.  I mean I think ...


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Oh no, no, I was just pointing out, when you said coming back in over the head of the board, I just wanted to mention the fact that already exists.


JEFF (ph):  In the, in the contracts I don't think it's that detailed, it just says that it can't be enforced if the independent review panel finds that there was no consensus or, I'm trying to find the language.


GRANT (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  We can, we can move on, because we've got, we've got to back to the rest of the document, and we've just made it through, we haven't, we haven't made it through much of our work assignment today, and we are - right?  Are we ready to move on though?  We've got a couple of incoming items ...


GRANT (ph):  No, we're eager, we're eager to move on.


CADE:  All right.  Ross (ph) I think I'm ...


ROSS (ph):  ... desperate to move on with this.


CADE:  ... so we, Jeff (ph) you were going to redo your section to turn it into a policy statement, and then, right, and then sort of an administrative detailed description?


JEFF (ph):  Yes, I still have that on my plate.


CADE:  That's OK.  I just wanted to know if you wanted to walk us through it, or you need more time?


JEFF (ph):  When you say my section, you mean the dispute resolution?


CADE:  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  I mean I think Ross (ph) captured a bunch of it in his conclusion, I think.  If I'm remembering correctly the documents.


GRANT (ph):  Solutions.


JEFF (ph):  Because I for whatever reason don't have it in front of me.  But basically I'm going to turn the dispute resolution section, take out the key principles of, you know, basically the conclusion is there should be a dispute resolution mechanism in the event that disputes arise.  That's the conclusion, and then in the appendix will be the description of what, of what we recommend, but that's more a recommendation than it is a conclusion.


CADE:  OK, I'm actually expecting two more things out of you on what we might call the dispute resolution section.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


CADE:  I'm expecting you to pull out the key principles, one principle would be there should be a dispute resolution procedure.  I expect a little more language there that describes the kind, and I think you probably were going to do this, but describes the kinds of things that we talked about, such as that procedure could be provided, that several options or a few options were discussed by the task force as to the providers of that dispute resolution procedure.  It could be A, it could be B, it could be C.  No definitive recommendations were made, I'm right about this, right?  I mean just trying to summarize it?


JEFF (ph):  Well, you mean the independent ones?


CADE:  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Above and beyond the registry?


CADE:  Right.  Right.  And so, you know, you need a little more detail that describes here what we discussed as options, not that we're - and then think about, is there anything else in here that we are proposing actually as a recommendation?  Then of course the detail moved to an appendix, but I think a second recommendation would be that a separate work initiative is needed to further define what, how to develop or implement or further explore, I'm just struggling with this, what the dispute resolution agreed to process would be. 


Because we, what we need to be saying to the task force I believe is we recommend a dispute resolution procedure, this task force has not, has done the following, we have not undertaken to fully develop such a procedure.  We think such a procedure could be developed in the following way, we attach an appendix, which we recommend be taken into, we've done enough work, our appendix sort of documents that we recommend that be taken into account if the names council implements such a procedure.


JEFF (ph):  Right.  OK.


CADE:  Do you follow, you OK?


JEFF (ph):  Yes, so the conclusions are, just the two points, there are two or three that you raised ...


CADE:  Let's ...


JEFF (ph):  ... where would the discussion be then?  Which section?  I mean I understand what you're saying, I'm just trying to figure out where in the document.


CADE:  First of all, let me, let me talk about this as an example, but let me poll others and make sure that my rambling description captured what we want to do.  Are you guys fine with that generally?


ROSS (ph):  Yes I believe so.  That doesn't - yes.


CADE:  OK.  So Jeff (ph) think of it this way, and I'm still struggling with what the format's going to look like.  But my idea would be that each of the sections would have a heading, there would be a, I'm going to call it a box for right now, OK?  And in the box would be what the consensus recommendation is, or what the recommendations are, OK?  And then there would be narrative underneath it.


JEFF (ph):  OK.  I think what I was, what I was thinking was to make number, you know, in the conclusions or recommendations we'd add a number 24, I guess we're on?  And just have the actual conclusions and recommendations, but where do we put the general discussion, is that above the, in the appendix itself, or?


CADE:  No, I don't want the general discussion in the appendix.  Think of this as a document, appendices should be appendices.  You wouldn't, you would not put narrative in an appendices.  So the report ...


JEFF (ph):  Have you seen an ICANN agreement?  You should look at all the narratives in those ...


CADE:  I do policy for a living.  I don't like contracts.  All right, I apparently know the difference but I'm not sure always that, never mind, I wasn't going to go there. 


JEFF (ph):  OK.  I can put it in the same place ...


CADE:  And ...


ROSS (ph):  If I if I can, if I can actually beg to differ slightly with that proposal and suggest maybe something that might improve the form and the substance?


CADE:  Love to hear it.


ROSS (ph):  There's a big difference between what we think and what we mean.  I think the conclusions and recommendations, i.e., the formal statements of consensus and our policy recommendations stand alone.  I think it's also important that we educate around that, so hence the need for a narrative.


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  In business documents it's standard form to produce the results ...


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  ... produce management's discussion of results as separate sections.  What you end up doing is mixing the recommendations and the narrative under the management discussion results, but keep the results themselves unto themselves I guess. 


CADE:  Which is, which is I think we're in agreement on that, because remember I had suggested to you there needs to be like a single page, which summarizes all the recommendations, and so we would then put Jeff's (ph) one or two recommendations at the end of yours ...


ROSS (ph):  What I, actually let me be really ...




ROSS (ph):  ... really precise with what my concern is ...




ROSS (ph):  ... with any approach.  Whatever we settle on, I'm sure will be fine.  I want to make sure that when the names council votes on it, that they can yank out five or six or ten pages out of the report, and say here's what I'm voting on.  Everything else is supporting material.


CADE:  Yes, OK ...


ROSS (ph):  ... more easily do the same thing ...


CADE:  ... the names council is going to vote on a resolution that Grant Forsythe (ph) is going to draft.


ROSS (ph):  No what I'm saying though is they need something to read, they need to get the substance, but anybody that's going to read a document is going to be worried about the substance, and then the editorial afterwards.  So first substance, then editorial.




ROSS (ph):  So in other words, I want it, I want the lines that we draw around the recommendations to be very clear.  Almost to the point of saying if you take these ten pages out, this is what we want you to vote on.  Everything else is just nice to have, not need to have.  OK?


CADE:  OK I - let me try this again.  So ...


ROSS (ph):  That's just my concern.  That's my requirement ...


CADE:  No, no.  No, no, no.  Let me try restating this again. 


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  What I'm envisioning would be a document, which right now, would be section, let me call it a section, OK?  It would be a section that lists the recommendations, and what we need to decide is, remember our recommendation, so it would list the recommendations, and that would be a page or what, however many number of pages it takes, that lists the recommendations.  If some of these, and then we need to be able to show where there is consensus, if it is a policy change, right?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  There could be recommendations, which are advisory and are, and are there, but they don't, they - I'm trying to figure out whether any of them don't represent a policy change.  And in some cases there's language that we've put in, that I think we're agreeing would not fit into a recommendation, but it would go in a narrative. 


ROSS (ph):  Right.


CADE:  OK.  So there would be a section, which is the section on recommendations, right?  Behind that, and that would be, behind that needs to be the narrative ...


ROSS (ph):  The second you say behind that, I think I'm completely comfortable.  Because all I'm advocating against is mixing the two together somehow.


CADE:  OK, but just a minute.  And in the behind that, we have to figure out a format which makes sense to people to understand, so then the question would be, behind it would there be a format which has the recommendation in a box, and underneath it the narrative?  So then I could - do you see what I mean?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  That makes perfect sense.  Yes, that's fine.


CADE:  Oh, OK.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, it could be italics and we could use bold ...


CADE:  Right, right, right.


ROSS (ph):  ... use red and blue, or yes.


CADE:  Insert it, indent it, blah, blah, blah.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  As long as those two sections ...


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... are completely separate and stand alone.


CADE:  I'm in agreement.  Does anyone else, is everyone else OK with this?


GRANT (ph):  I'm OK.


CADE:  All right.  By the way, just a side bar conversation to you, Ross (ph) would you email Alex (ph).  I pinged him about the charts (ph) ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... and I haven't heard back from him.


ROSS (ph):  Well I volunteered to do him a favor today so he's completely on board.


CADE:  OK.  OK, can we go to the document then to see what else we ...


ROSS (ph):  I believe we have an agenda, two agenda items Marilyn ...




ROSS (ph):  ... that we go through first and foremost, and most important go through the conclusions and recommendations and see, and make that notation of consensus or recommendation beside it, as Grant (ph) had proposed on Tuesday.


GRANT (ph):  What are you holding me to now Ross (ph)?


ROSS (ph):  Everything I haven't done Grant (ph).  No, you had recommended on Tuesday that today we go through each of these statements and determine whether or not we've met the test of consensus or not ...


GRANT (ph):  Oh, I've run out of time, I've got to drop off the call at this point.  You mean have I, have we done our homework?  I was waiting for your new draft Ross (ph).


ROSS (ph):  It's, it came out this afternoon.


GRANT (ph):  Jeff (ph) it came sometime when I was deep in sleep.


ROSS (ph):  It would have ...


CADE:  I'm going to, I'm going to walk out and pick it up off the printer, and I'll be right back.  Leaving Ross (ph) in a mode of having to cajole the rest of you.  I'll be right back.


GRANT (ph):  Ross (ph) I've just printed it off.  The version you've just sent through now, we have made change.  Can I basically deduce the changes you made, you did not mark up so they're just embodied?


ROSS (ph):  No, it's marked up.  Either grid lining maybe turned off by default, but it's certainly red lined and included in the document.


GRANT (ph):  OK.  Second thing is, I guess I could do this by looking it up but I've printed it so I don't have it at the moment.  The changes that you went through, because I was late on the call on Wednesday my time, was that just solutions and recommendations?


ROSS (ph):  Correct, the only changes we went through on the call last, on Tuesday.


GRANT (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  No other items.


GRANT (ph):  It is really neat to look at pages 11 through ...


ROSS (ph):  11 through 19 I believe.


GRANT (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Hey Ross (ph), did you get my ...


ROSS (ph):  Doesn't seem ...


JEFF (ph):  ... comments to the definitions?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  I didn't make, I didn't include that change yet so yes, I outlined that at the beginning of the call.  The two things that you sent to me last week haven't been included.  They'll be included in the next revision.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  But I saw no reason to disagree with them, it was exactly what we'd agreed to on the call, it's just a matter of administration to include it now.


JEFF (ph):  OK, cool.


ROSS (ph):  Translation, I forgot before I sent out the document.


JEFF (ph):  That's all right.


ROSS (ph):  Seeing as we're getting transcribed, I can't even tell good Marilyn jokes now.


JEFF (ph):  Sure you can.  She'll appreciate them.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Why don't you email them to me Ross (ph) and I'll tell them. 


ROSS (ph):  Perfect.


CADE:  Is there still phone service to that country to the north?


ROSS (ph):  Not for long, I have to email quickly.




ROSS (ph):  So Roger (ph) and Marilyn walked into a bar, Roger's (ph) not ...


CADE:  Could you keep going?  I don't mean with the joke.


ROSS (ph):  OK, so point number one, consensus or not?  Starting on page 11.


JEFF (ph):  Starting with page, hold on.


CADE:  Registrants ...


ROSS (ph):  Point number one.


CADE:  ... registrants must be able to transfer domain name between registrars.


JEFF (ph):  We're going through all these again?


CADE:  We ...


ROSS (ph):  I - yes, we got to say consensus or not, right?


CADE:  Right.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  So now I think wording is nailed and if there's typos, please bring them to attention.


CADE:  And actually there's three categories, aren't, isn't there?


ROSS (ph):  Oh is there?  OK.


CADE:  There's consensus ...


ROSS (ph):  Supportable and, right.


CADE:  Yes, or not.  And because if it's a question of, then maybe we don't know yet, we have to go look again.


ROSS (ph):  Right.


CADE:  OK, got it, OK.


ROSS (ph):  So what do you guys think about the first one?


JEFF (ph):  Sure.


CADE:  I think that there is consensus, and we have to put an asterisk beside the minimum standards and figure out whether we have described that some place.


JEFF (ph):  What if we can't tell because no comments addressed it?


CADE:  Well tell me what you mean by that because you, as a task force, you can discern consensus based on the input and a vote of the task force.


JEFF (ph):  Well like, if we break down individual things ...


CADE:  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  ... oh you're saying consensus of the task force?


CADE:  Well consensus has to be supportable, but you have to have a couple of things, right?  You have to, the task force should have been taking comments.  Now we won't have been able to take comments Jeff (ph), on every, I mean there's no, there's no value added to a task force if all we do is just, we have to have added value here.  So there's going to be sentences in it that we're going to say we don't know if the comments we've taken so far, whether we were clear enough about this that the comments we've taken so far address it.  That's a valid question.  But the task force may say well we talked about this general category and it, there seemed to be consensus for this direction.  Do you see what I mean?


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  I don't mean to be vague about it.


JEFF (ph):  No, it's just, it's you're right, it's just difficult when you take sentence by sentence and each conclusion, there are certain conclusions that we know people have addressed, there are others that nobody has addressed but does that mean that there is consensus, not consensus, is it consensus by silence ...


CADE:  Would you mark those as we go through, and that'll be where we have to determine whether or not ...


JEFF (ph):  Well like nobody said anything about point number one but I think it's, I mean I would say ...


CADE:  Hold on here, sorry.  I'm ...


ROSS (ph):  Come on, I thought you were, you're going to let that one slide. Come on.


CADE:  That's the whole purpose of doing this is so that registrants can transfer their domain names.  Everyone has talked about that.  I think maybe I'm dealing on a higher, you know, I'm dealing at too high a level?


JEFF (ph):  Yes, I'm dealing with the individual sentence.


GRANT (ph):  Yes and I think, Marilyn I think all Jeff's (ph) saying, he's focusing on, in on, well - on comments that we've actually received.  You're quite right Marilyn that principle number one is why we're here, but I think Jeff's (ph) equally right that we haven't received comments because it's just a, it's just a taken.


CADE:  Here's where I disagree with you.  We've had open calls where people have reinforced the need to be able to transfer domain names.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, no, no, no, Marilyn that's not the point.  The sentence reads, it's got two different things.  One that says registrants must be able to transfer their domain names between registrars, right?  The second thing is that there must be minimum standards, and that the transfer is not prohibited by ICANN registry policy.  Now I agree, I think, I think there would be consensus if there was a vote taken on each individual statement, it's just we haven't had any comments.  I don't think it hurts us to say that there's consensus on it, but what I'm doing is if we have to go through this sentence by sentence.


ROSS (ph):  Well see, so you're almost suggesting a fourth category of we believe we can demonstrate consensus but nobody's spoken against it.


JEFF (ph):  Right.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


GRANT (ph):  Yes, so ...


ROSS (ph):  I think that's what consensus is.


GRANT (ph):  Yes, yes, well.  Hang on, that's all Jeff (ph) was asking, was what's the, what basis are we going to use in order to stick a claim of consensus next to it, and I think we've now, we've now distilled that.


CADE:  Secondly, I would say Ross (ph), you could consider making this two sentences.


GRANT (ph):  No, don't.


CADE:  All right.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, we're not editorializing.


CADE:  Keep going ...


ROSS (ph):  As the, as the ...


CADE:  ... so we may ...


ROSS (ph):  ... as the team leader for the drafting committee I'm putting my foot down, no editorial changes in this call.  Only  ...


GRANT (ph):  No good.


CADE:  Keep trying.


ROSS (ph):  ... only to be vetoed by the chair.  Two, implementation of these conclusions and recommendations should, whenever possible, use existing protocols and standards.


GRANT (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Like this is another one we haven't received any comments on, but I mean I agree with and I think we could demonstrate it but ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  I can't imagine who would argue against this one, but I think Jeff's (ph) right ...


CADE:  Let me, let me ask a question guys.  We, take me back here, why were we having this ongoing discussion with Scott Hollenbeck (ph) and others about whether we were going to have discussions about standards?  Are we, I'm trying to, I'm going, I would have to go back and look, but I believe we have discussed the need for consistency and the need for standards.


ROSS (ph):  Yes and also Marilyn I would only add that in, at least in my definition of consensus, it's literally when people stop arguing about the conclusion.  They've either resigned themselves to their fate or everybody agrees with it.  So not receiving comments in my book is a good indication that we're close or spot on.


CADE:  OK, let's keep going because I think at least the task force members on the call do support that this is supportable, right?


ROSS (ph):  And I think that's all we can ask for.  Registrars must maintain an email address for use by all other registrars and registries for formal communication considering (ph) the transfer process can be sent and dealt with by the receiving registrar.


JEFF (ph):  Sure.




ROSS (ph):  OK.  Actually, in order for expediency sake, I'm going to assume in all further questions that we've got consensus, and I'm going to look for objections.  So jump in, slow me down, stop me if you've got an objection.  Number four I have marked for further discussion, speaking of objections.  Marilyn have you changed your position on that since last call?


CADE:  No.  What, you think I had a brain transplant?


ROSS (ph):  Is this a recommended best practice or is this a required must have?  This would be an editorial change, but we have it marked and I think it's not inappropriate to deal with now.


CADE:  You know ...


GRANT (ph):  Ross (ph) you're talking about four?


ROSS (ph):  Four ...


CADE:  Yes.  I heard two things in some of the discussion, and that is that language like clear and concise as possible in order to avoid confusing registrants or other stakeholders, that that is subjective and hard to evaluate.  And I actually, and I have a problem with where appropriate for a different reason, I understand why it's there but I think that's confusing.  I would prefer to see something like, in order, either it would be, it would, in order to ensure that intraregistrar domain name transfer processes are as clear and concise as possible, and to avoid confusing registrants or other stakeholders, registrars are, registrars should publish their specific transfer processes for the benefit of registrants.


ROSS (ph):  And is this now, I wouldn't disagree with those recommendations on the, or those amendments on the condition that we move it out of the formal recommendations and into the, and here's nice things we'd like to see category.


CADE:  I don't agree with that.  It's my belief, and I'm happy to go back and keep looking up the written record that people like to Denise Michelle, the telcos that were on the phone with us, and others ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... asked for the clear written procedure so that they knew what their, what their rights were or what the process was.


ROSS (ph):  Right.  Now the requirement ...


CADE:  And by the way, I haven't heard anyone speak against that.


ROSS (ph):  I spoke against it continuously.  Not ...


CADE:  I'm sorry, besides ...


ROSS (ph):  ... requirement ...


CADE:  ... in the community.  I'm sorry, you're on the task force, sorry.


ROSS (ph):  I'm part of the community too, and I'm speaking with both hats on now just to treble my concern, is that I don't disagree with the requirement.  I think it's noble, it's worthwhile but it's impractical to require registrars to implement this.


CADE:  Why is it not in the registrar agreement with the registrant?


JEFF (ph):  Because registrars don't ever want to, in any kind of documentation tell a registrant that they can transfer a name away.  It's not good marketing practices.  You know, how many telcos when you get a statement of their policies tell you that you could transfer it away?


CADE:  What are we doing here about the registrants' right to information?


ROSS (ph):  Yes, no.  That's going in a different direction ...


CADE:  And so I'm happy to have you not put it on the, in the registration agreement, although I frankly, ISPs do tell their customers how they can, how they can cancel the service.


JEFF (ph):  Yes sure, when you call them up.


CADE:  No, it's in our terms of service.


ROSS (ph):  Marilyn, here's a compromise that I think gets to where the community wants to be, and where I'm completely comfortable with it, and it's something that was brought up in one of the calls.  Rather than leaving registrars to interpret what registrants' rights are, why don't we request that ICANN make a statement as to what registrants' rights are?  And require registrars, in their registration agreement, to link to that statement.  So I think, because I think it gets to the best of both worlds very quickly.


CADE:  So ICANN would be, once the new intraregistrar domain name transfer processes are negotiated and implemented, ICANN would document such processes and publish those standard, the standard parts of them, right?  Publish those standard transfer processes for the benefits of registrants via InterNIC and other appropriate mechanisms.  That doesn't, that mean the registrant has no information from the registrar ...


ROSS (ph):  No, no, because there's two parts to the proposal.




ROSS (ph):  Publish it on the Web and then registrar links to it in the registration agreement.


CADE:  Grant (ph)?


GRANT (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Do you have comments?


GRANT (ph):  No.


ROSS (ph):  Is that a no comment or a no complaint?


GRANT (ph):  Yes, I don't have a comment.  No, I don't have a comment.


CADE:  Here's what I think you need to do if you would please.  Would you rewrite that and distribute it, and we're going to need to get it to, and we'll mark these, we're going to need to get David (ph) and ...


ROSS (ph):  OK, I'll send it to the list.


CADE:  Good, OK.


ROSS (ph):  That's fair.  OK.


CADE:  And would you mark it in particular, responses are needed.  We'll put a, we'll put a cover note on it Ross (ph), you know, we're going, I'm going to need to say to people, you must, a task force in, but you need to comment on items one, seven, eight - I'm making these numbers up, four, blah, blah, blah.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, understand.


GRANT (ph):  So Marilyn.  I guess my question is what is the aspect of four that you're thinking needs further discussion on?  The word encourage?


CADE:  Oh actually Ross (ph) is changing it completely because he doesn't support leaving it in.


GRANT (ph):  Ross (ph) ...


ROSS (ph):  I'm trying, I'm trying to get to consensus Grant (ph).


CADE:  Consensus is not just an agreement between you and me though.


JEFF (ph):  Yes what, I still don't understand what you don't agree with.  I mean I have no problem with it saying encourage because it's like a best practice.


ROSS (ph):  What I, what I, you know, to summarize both sides I think, because that will help me understand Marilyn’s position as well is that I hear the users saying that their right to information, that their expectation for certain minimum standards isn't filled in a manner fitting them by the current language, and I'm making the exact opposite argument saying that the stronger the language gets the less adoption we'll get on a practical basis, simply because of the divergent businesses ...


CADE:  Denise Michelle (ph) pointed out to us, and so did several other people, that they were told by their registrars that they could not transfer the domain name because of a particular practice of a registrar.  They were unaware it was a practice of a registrar, it was presented to them as though it was a larger requirement.  They were at some of them that were advised that if they chose to transfer their name, they would lose it.


JEFF (ph):  So Marilyn, you'd like to change it to registrars must document and publish their specific ...


CADE:  Yes, I would.  But I've agreed to a compromise, which, but takes the responsibility away from the registrars and gives it to ICANN. 


GRANT (ph):  You know what,  I have to say I would support Marilyn about must, and I would have thought I would put the concept of a transfer process, given its significance in its impact on the registrant, I would put that in the same category as a contractual term.  And I would, I imagine, or would hope that there is a requirement for the registrars to publish their contractual terms.  They can't get people to sign up without providing them, either literally providing them or actually providing them with these contractual terms, or at least pointing them in the direction of published public, the published contractual terms. 


JEFF (ph):  Oh yes ...


GRANT (ph):  ... so I think that change ...


JEFF (ph):  ... that first ...


GRANT (ph):  ... it would encourage the must.


JEFF (ph):  We can go a step further Grant (ph), and say that registrars are encouraged and also meet, not just their own contract with the end users, but their contract with their resellers.  I mean, how far do we go with it?


GRANT (ph):  Well, the point is, just on that particular point, as a registrant, if I choose to deal with a party who is in fact a reseller, I'm not really particularly interested in the upstream relationship that the reseller has.  What I'm interested in is the relationship that the reseller is going to deliver me.  Now, so I'm interested in what, in my contract with the reseller, including how the reseller deals to me on the matter of transfers.  So ...


JEFF (ph):  Right.


GRANT (ph):  ... why not, I'm not interested in the reseller saying you need to go see what I, the reseller am obliged to do according to my registrar. 


JEFF (ph):  Why not?


GRANT (ph):  I'm interested in the reseller telling me what he or she, or they, are going to do for me.


JEFF (ph):  Well if I deal with a reseller, and I want to transfer my name to another, to a registrar let's say, or a reseller of another registrar, shouldn't I have to have the information?


GRANT (ph):  Absolutely.  So it's the reseller's obligation to publish that transfer process, irregardless of what a registrar ...


JEFF (ph):  Right.  So what we do in the contracts and the registry contracts, is we with certain things, we require the registrars, not only the registrar to do it, but to ensure that their resellers do the same thing.


ROSS (ph):  OK, propose that we move forward folks.  I don't, I don't hear any disagreement on the base requirement that registrants need to be informed.  I'm seeing substantial disagreement over the language, so I'm going to take Marilyn’s advice, publish some language to the list.


JEFF (ph):  But Ross (ph) ...


ROSS (ph):  Marilyn ...


JEFF (ph):  ... I'm ...


ROSS (ph):  ... because I don't mind taking a vote on this, like I'm not, I'm not opposed to the requirement.  I think it's worthy, and we need to address it.  I'm just, the best way to effect that requirement is what's in question.  So I think if I saw that on paper, at least I would be able to sort out the, OK I completely understand what it is that we're trying to achieve, and I'm not as opposed as I might be now, or vice versa, right?


GRANT (ph):  Right.  Can I just ask, there's two questions I just want to ask.  The first one is, do you guys, being Ross (ph) and Jeff (ph), think that there will be push back on a requirement for a registrar to publish the specific transfer processes that they commit to exercise?


ROSS (ph):  It's actually the just opposite Grant (ph).  What I'm saying is that Tucows publishing its transfer processes ...


GRANT (ph):  Yes right.


ROSS (ph):  ... I said, it's actually just the opposite.  Tucows publishing its transfer processes on a Website doesn't help the registrant, because we don't deal with registrants.  It becomes buried, it becomes a non-event, a non-notice.


GRANT (ph):  Hang on.  Is that because Tucows has no registrants?


ROSS (ph):  It's because registrants don't come to our Website to do anything.


JEFF (ph):  Right, so you'd have to require your resellers to do that.


GRANT (ph):  But leave out the reseller, that's my question.  Is your comment Ross (ph), because Tucows does not have a one-to-one relationship with registrants. 


ROSS (ph):  Correct.


GRANT (ph):  OK.  Now take that, well is that your concern Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  Yes there's a bunch of registrars - well not a bunch, there's a few registrars in that position.  So requiring that you purchase (ph) the registrars doesn't really help in Tucows ...


GRANT (ph):  Yes, I want to get to the second question, which is the relationship with resellers and registrars.  But where a registrar deals with registrants directly, do you think there'd be any push back on them, on a requirement for them to publish the process by which they handle transfers?


JEFF (ph):  I don't think so.  I mean I ...


GRANT (ph):  Right.


JEFF (ph):  ... I think, you know, they might ...


GRANT (ph):  You don't ...


JEFF (ph):  ... not publish it where you'd want them to, but I don't think there'd be too much push back.


GRANT (ph):  No, because I think, presumably there is a requirement for them to publish the contractual terms that they, the registrant to enter into.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Now while I think that far reaching that any registrar would try to mislead its customers, if there were ever registrars who didn't want their ...


GRANT (ph):  Right, can someone - someone's got a background conversation.  Can they mute it?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Ooh, that's so much better. 


GRANT (ph):  Does that just leave you and I on the call?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Maybe.


ROSS (ph):  No, I'm here.


GRANT (ph):  Oh, OK.  Hang on.


CHRISTINE (ph):  My point is there, if there are some registrars who are trying to hide their processes because they're trying to make it difficult for registrants to - oh never mind, I'm not going there.


CADE:  Well I ...


ROSS (ph):  Maybe it's to know where you were going ...


CADE:  ... I have a question though?


ROSS (ph):  We need to talk about that on Monday Christine (ph), when you're allowed to talk.


CADE:  Guys I have a question. 


ROSS (ph):  ... though.


CADE:  Given the fact that we're trying to standardize a good amount of the transfer process, how much, you know, I would, as Ross (ph) knows, I would like to see registrars and their agents or resellers, but given that we're trying to standardize this process, how much of this is going to be really disparate from registrar to registrar?


ROSS (ph):  That would be slightly different, I think we're setting standards for the processes Marilyn, not trying to standardize them.  But I hear what you're saying.  I think the answer to the question that didn't get asked ...


CADE:  The timeframe will be standardized, we've talked about that and hopefully standardized.  The ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... either you have an EPP code and if you don't get it here's what you do, and ...


ROSS (ph):  I'm just putting, I'm just putting words ...




ROSS (ph):  ... perhaps even unnecessarily.  If this language, if we broke this out in two statements, because I think the first really gets to where the user community is, where there has a rap (ph).  It must be clear, must be understandable, it must be concise, because we don't want to be confused.  Break it out into two discreet thoughts.  The second discreet thought should say rather than putting the onus on a registrar to document and publish, put the onus on the registrar to ensure that the registrant receives notice.  I think we're ...


GRANT (ph):  Sorry, make that last point, to ensure that the - what?


ROSS (ph):  So rather than saying we're right, where appropriate registrars are encouraged to or registrars must document and publish, something to the effect of registrants must be notified of, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  I think we can put it to bed if we can get the language like that ...


GRANT (ph):  OK.  I ...


CADE:  I heard huge push back from registrars who go, well the email address is wrong, so how do you expect me to be able to assure that I delivered this documentation?


ROSS (ph):  If there is no link on the Website or in the contract, or in any of the emails, in other words, if the registrar can demonstrate that they've attempted to provide notice to the registrant, then they haven't fulfilled their bargain.  You know, you see what I'm saying?


CADE:  But this is ...


GRANT (ph):  Can we just park that thought for a moment, because I'm going to come to what I see is part of the discussion, and I don't understand it.  In the document that we've got here, I see no mention of the word reseller.  Now I'm very happy about that, because the fact that a registrar chooses to use another party as a sales channel is entirely up to them from my point of view, but the obligations that we're seeking to set in place here are correctly targeted at the registrar.  As I say, if a registrar then chooses to establish an agency relationship with a reseller, then all one would expect is that the obligations of the registrar will be correctly transferred to its agent.  I don't think I want to get into how the agent operates. 


My presumption is if we make these obligations clear enough, that the agent will exercise the registrar's obligations.  So I just want, it's just that this is the first time in my short memory that the question has arisen in this whole discussion about transfers as to the place and the dealing to resellers.  And I just want to stay entirely out of that, because I think it's an unnecessary layer of complexity, which I don't think we want to get to, or if we do, all it would require is a simple statement to the effect that registrars much ensure their agents resellers fulfill the registrar's policy obligations.


ROSS (ph):  Right, right.  I think, I think that's a wise approach Grant (ph). 


GRANT (ph):  Jeff (ph) did you, does that make sense to you?


JEFF (ph):  Yes, no I understand.  What I'm saying is in the practical implications is in a context between a registry and registrar is the registry would hold the registrar accountable for the activities of the reseller.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  And rightly so according to what Grant (ph) has just described. 


GRANT (ph):  So now we come back to this particular issue, as to talking about what, in order to ensure that the first part of the paragraph, or first sentence is achieved, the question is do we need to go on, and if so how, to specify what registrars must do, or as Ross (ph) was suggesting, rather than specify what registrars must do, I think what you're suggesting Ross (ph) is that we specify what outcome the registrant must be, must be delivered.


ROSS (ph):  Exactly.  Precisely.  Registrants must ...


GRANT (ph):  And Marilyn’s saying, yes but if one just specifies the outcome to be achieved, I, a registrant must be, must be informed.  Are we, are we setting ourselves up for, you know, registrars saying well, can't do it or did try and do it, but blah, blah, blah?  I'd have to say I prefer to couch these things in the, where we can, in the registrant, a desirable outcome for the registrant.  But ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Guys, I need to step out of my office for a little bit, but I'll be back.


ROSS (ph):  Not forever, right?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Of course not.


ROSS (ph):  Or is tomorrow your last day?


GRANT (ph):  But having said that of course, one of the things that we are trying to achieve through this process is, as we've noted, a standardized process.  And so simply specifying an outcome, and leaving the mechanism process for achievement of that outcome, does leave it open to different processes and hints a non-standardized situation as far as the registrant is concerned.  So if we look at this particular issue, if we, if we state that registrars must publish their document, or must document and publish, then that's pretty nonequivocable. 


And as a registrant I would know where I enter into a relationship in buying a domain name, somewhere in the registrar, and I don't care whether it's registrar or reseller, that I am dealing with the party I'm transacting with, will have published its processes for transferring.  And let's hope through other parts of this policy, most of that is a standardized process.  Whereas if we go to the other and just say OK, the registrar must ensure that the registrant is informed, you know, they might send them an email, they might send me a Christmas card, they might put it on their Website.


ROSS (ph):  Skywriting.  Does anybody have any ideas as to, I hear you Grant (ph), and I'm not disagreeing with it.  Is there any way that we can write that down to achieve that outcome?  Because even to cause them to be, like you point out, I don't, I don't if we can walk that fine line necessarily. 


GRANT (ph):  So which one are you referring to now Ross (ph)?


ROSS (ph):  The second, what you just described.  In other words, is it possible for someone on this call to come up with the language that just adequately describes the outcome?  In a concrete manner.  Or is it even possible?


CADE:  Well let me ...


GRANT (ph):  Well, if I might just have a quick try.  If you turn this thing around from a registrant's point of view, you can just say a registrant must be informed, and must be able to access a published process.


CADE:  Got it.  I like it.  Is that OK Ross (ph)?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  Yes, let me ...


CADE:  And then that could be left up in the implementation, between the contracting parties and the staff to figure out what the best ways are to do that.


ROSS (ph):  But you realize if ...


GRANT (ph):  Yes, and ...


ROSS (ph):  ... I ever hear comments that registrants are uninformed, I'm going to be very upset you two.  I'm kidding, I'm kidding.  Can you, can you just repeat that Grant (ph), and I'll type it up.


GRANT (ph):  Oh, I'd say something like registrants must be informed, and must be able to access published, the published processes of their registrar, or something like that.  Their published, the published processes, or specific transfer processes of their registrar.


ROSS (ph):  Must have access to the specific transfer processes (INAUDIBLE) registrar.  How does this sound, and I'll, there's a couple of minor things I don't like, but just as far as intent goes.  Registrants must be informed regarding the processes by which their domain name registration will be transferred from registrar to another, and therefore must have access to the specific transfer processes in place at the gaining registrar?  And it would be a description of the specific transfer processes, just something like that.


CADE:  But what, and why did you skip the, you said, you said it's all about the gaining registrar?


ROSS (ph):  Yes, because under this construct the processes in place at the losing registrar are irrelevant. 


GRANT (ph):  Oh I don't think so. 


ROSS (ph):  No?


GRANT (ph):  Because ...


ROSS (ph):  OK.  No, you're right, you're actually, you're right.  You're right, you're right.


CADE:  Yes, I think this is actually an informational point that ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  You're absolutely right.  You're absolutely right.  If the - yes. 


GRANT (ph):  Ross (ph), can you give me just a second, I'll have a go at writing what I thought?


ROSS (ph):  Sure.  All right.  Let's move on then guys.


CADE:  And we'll recap when Christine (ph) comes back.


ROSS (ph):  If you want to do that later Grant (ph), that would be great.  Can EPP based gTLD registries, registrars must provide the registrant with the registrant's unique auth info code within a reasonable period of time of the registrant's initial request.  The task force observes support for this reasonable time period 72 hours or a similarly limited period of time.  Can we for both statement that the first sentence is supported by consensus, and the second one is a supportable statement?  Anybody disagree with that?


CADE:  Keep going.


ROSS (ph):  And seven, in EPP based gTLD registries, registrars may not employ any mechanism for a registrant to obtain its auth info code that is more restrictive that what we require.


CADE:  That's - I'm sorry, I'm reading from your latest version.  Seven, I think seven says ...


ROSS (ph):  Oh sorry, I split up - sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.  Auto updated bullets, I split four into two, so I'm now reading from six.  Correct?


GRANT (ph):  Six in our version?


ROSS (ph):  Six in your version.




ROSS (ph):  In EPP based gTLD registries, registrars may not employ any mechanism for a registrant to obtain its auth info code that is more restrictive than what they require from the registrant to change any aspect of its contact or name server information. 


CADE:  Ross (ph) I don't, I don't disagree with this, so my observation to you and to Jeff (ph) is that a lot of this is really inside ballgame speak. 


ROSS (ph):  So is the current policy on transfers though Marilyn.


CADE:  Yes, that's OK.  I'm just, I'm just - it's a comment.


ROSS (ph):  Is there anything on the, is there anybody on the call that doesn't understand what we're talking about here, I think would be the next question?  Given that it is pretty esoteric.


CADE:  Why don't we just come back to that when we talk about the narrative, and we can add a couple of sentences in the narrative section that breaks it down a little bit.


ROSS (ph):  Fair enough, fair enough. 


GRANT (ph):  So Ross (ph), I now have a simple way for the second part of four.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


GRANT (ph):  I just suggest it be the following, the registrant must be informed of, and have access to, the published documentation of the specific transfer processes of their registrar.


ROSS (ph):  Perfect.


GRANT (ph):  And the question is ...


ROSS (ph):  Switch (ph) out (ph) ...


GRANT (ph):  ... here whether it's the losing, gaining, whatever else ...


ROSS (ph):  Ship it off and I'll put it in.  I have no disagreement with that text.  And Marilyn’s silent.  Use (ph) to that means that's ...


CADE:  I'm happy.


ROSS (ph):  Terrific.  Beginning registrar must provide the registrant or administrative contact of record the capability to verify their intention to transfer their domain name registration by filling out the standardized, sorry for the short form folks, form of authorization.


CADE:  I'm happy.


ROSS (ph):  All right.  Consensus.  Beginning registrar is solely responsible for validating registrar ...


CADE:  Oh let, you know, I said I was happy.  Your question is do we have consensus on something.


ROSS (ph):  As I said earlier I'm assuming we have consensus on all these points ...


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  ... unless I hear otherwise.


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  And of course I'm sure once I send this off to the list we'll have many ...


CADE:  And the one question that's open there is whether other people outside of the task force support the need for a standardized form of authorization, right?


ROSS (ph):  We get to that.


CADE:  Got it, OK.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  Beginning registrar is solely responsible for validating registrant request to transfer domain names between registrars.


CADE:  And that is ...


ROSS (ph):  I'm not assuming anything on this because of the history of the arguments, and I would like to hear what you guys believe the community has told us on this point.


CADE:  Yes.  I think there are some in the community who do not agree with this.  And we have received comments of, we have received some comments from the community that indicate there are registrars who do not agree with this.


ROSS (ph):  Now I read an article in "Wired Magazine" today Marilyn that described the Eternal Life Society, and they believe that it is possible to live forever.  I would describe the current prevailing opinion as a consensus that that is not possible.  So I would, I'm ...


CADE:  Let me just see what we going to say here, OK?  Some registrars that we have heard from have indicated that they do not agree with this.  I will tell you I am unclear right now since we haven't received, other than the letter that we received from the registrars, and some other individual comments, we have not received input from the registrar constituency that expresses an opinion on this point.


ROSS (ph):  Let's, for sake of argument, put a number on the number of registrars that do not support that statement and let's call it 15 now.  So it's roughly a third of the constituency membership.  Just for the sake of argument, this is a hypothetical.




ROSS (ph):  If 15 registrars, and we'll assume it's a broad cross section, includes some from the top ten, some from the mid tier, some of the small guys.  There's 15 that don't support that statement.  I've not heard, and this is for you guys to tell me otherwise, I have not heard the registries argue with the statement, I've not heard the user communities, the business constituents, the IP, et cetera, argue against that statement.  Is the 15 ...


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... that stand in opposition ...


CADE:  Right.  No, I think that's exactly where I wanted to go, because I wanted to remind people that we did have some discussion, not in great detail, but we did have some discussion about users not wanting to be contacted by both registrars.  So the input we've received that does not support eight has been from some members of the registrar constituency.  There's no formal position of the registrar constituency that I'm aware of, that in terms of a re-vote, and we have not heard from the registries or the other constituencies that they do not support this.  Is that a good summary for people?  That's how I'm going to write it up.


ROSS (ph):  OK, I just, OK.  I don't disagree with that statement Marilyn.  Just I want to be painfully clear for everybody else on the call, not to be fanatic about it, but this is the backbone of the proposal.


CADE:  I think we all understand that.


ROSS (ph):  Fair enough.


CADE:  Yes.  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Fair enough.  I'd mark that with a provisional C.




ROSS (ph):  Moving on to number nine.  However this does not preclude the losing registrar from exercising its option to independently confirm the registrant's intent to transfer.  No objections?  Also C.


GRANT (ph):  Marilyn, it's Grant (ph) here.  I've got three more minutes on the call.


ROSS (ph):  We've only got 25 points to go through Grant (ph) ...


CADE:  So let me, so I have scheduled a call for next Tuesday, same time.  Although I'm on holiday all next week, we obviously have to do this.  What I think we're going to need, we'll keep going through this Grant (ph) and then, I think what we need to do is send this back out to people with a summary from us Ross (ph), from you and me, that says, you know, we'll put a, we'll put a C or we'll put a code beside these and tell the rest of the task force that they need to comment to you.  Is that OK?


ROSS (ph):  Excuse, just repeat that, I'm sorry.


CADE:  What you and I will do, we'll work through this with Jeff (ph) and Christine (ph) ...


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  ... we'll put a code beside each of these numbers.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, which I've done already so ...


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  ... then we'll publish that, OK.


CADE:  And then ...


GRANT (ph):  Sounds great.


CADE:  And then Grant (ph) I'm, I am going to come back to you and talk to you separately about drafting a resolution.


GRANT (ph):  Yes I have, you've already tasked me that, and I've thought a bit more about it.  I'll have revisited the wording, let's just say I don't see a lot of difference in the wording that I've put ...


CADE:  Right, right.


GRANT (ph):  ... I'll revisit. 


CADE:  Right, right, right.


GRANT (ph):  OK.  See you.


CADE:  Thank you.


ROSS (ph):  Thanks Grant (ph).


CADE:  OK, let's just keep going here.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  If the losing registrar chooses not to or cannot positively confirm the intent of the registrant, the transfer will still go through.  I feel like I'm on Jeopardy or something.


CADE:  Is there any timeframe mentioned here, that they, like what is the timeframe for the transfer?


ROSS (ph):  No it's, for the entire transfer?


CADE:  Well them, right here, this says eight, right?  So from the time that I request a transfer to the time it goes through, does nine have any impact?


ROSS (ph):  Nine is, however this does not preclude?


CADE:  So I am at registrar A ...


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  ... and transferring to registrar B.  Registrar A contacts me and gets some kind of confusing message from me, goes to registrar B and says hold on, we were unable to confirm the intent.


ROSS (ph):  Losing registrar can't NACK if they have not confirmed.


CADE:  Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it.  OK, I'm OK, I just was, yes.


ROSS (ph):  So we're underscoring the default rule.


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  For this statement.




ROSS (ph):  So I believe that if we are saying in eight and a few other places, if we have consensus on that point then ten just naturally follows.




ROSS (ph):  Does that make sense from a process standpoint Jeff (ph)?  Like from a technical process standpoint?


JEFF (ph):  Yes, there's a total, just to answer Marilyn’s question, there's a total of five days ...


CADE:  Right.  I was just trying to see if it added anything in terms of days.


JEFF (ph):  No ...


ROSS (ph):  No, not at all.




JEFF (ph):  ... this won't change that at all.


CADE:  Right.


ROSS (ph):  OK, marked it with a C.  If the losing registrar chooses to, moving onto 11, does anybody disagree with 11?  With the level of consensus we have on 11?  I think we're just going to speed it up by calling out numbers.


JEFF (ph):  Sorry, that's a long one, I'm ...


CADE:  It is very long.


ROSS (ph):  Fair enough.


CADE:  And I'm, what I would probably offer an edit to you on, and I'll do this separately.  If the losing registrar independently confirms the intent, it just would make it shorter in words, and I may come back to you with something, just so we can try to, the form of the auth, of the request employed must provide the name holder with instructions for approving or denying, and a concise declaration describing the impact.  One thing that we will be, this is where we are being told that some of this is too administratively detailed, and it may be a question of wording, so it could say for instance, specifically the request used must provide the following three elements, or something of that nature.  And I'll talk to you about it Ross (ph), but ...


ROSS (ph):  I'm going, for the record one more time, oppose that view based on the fact that one of the items in our terms of reference wasn't to make the current policy governing transfers more readable or less administrative.  What we set out here is equally administrative or less administrative in some cases than what's in the current exhibit B.  That's just me speaking for the record.  Send me what you will Marilyn.


CADE:  I don't want to find us in a situation, and I know you two, you three don't either, where we end up in an argument at the names council about how wordy our recommendation is, and they fail to approve it because they get bogged down in an argument about that.  So let me just come back to you about, because, this idea, and see what you think about it.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, yes, yes.  If you, there's the - yes, I can, yes.  It must be practical in the theoretical or we'll, or not lost on it so I'll move on.  12, is this the consensus recommendation or some other type of recommendation?


JEFF (ph):  I think this is another type.  I think it's one ...


ROSS (ph):  This is our first other type, let's talk about that.  Go ahead.


JEFF (ph):  I think that 12 is a recommendation.  I think we haven't had enough feedback on it, and I think there probably would be registrars that would disagree with that.


ROSS (ph):  In what sense, disagree with what, because there's a couple of thoughts in there?


JEFF (ph):  Yes.  Well the first, so number one is we're trying to control their marketing practices.  Number two is, I'm reading the second sentence now.


ROSS (ph):  Where do we control their marketing practices through Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  Yes.  I can see some registrars objecting to this.  I don't think we've gotten enough feedback on this one.


CADE:  How about a suggestion from the task force that, let me just talk about the narrative as opposed to the principle for just a minute?  That goes back to the fact that the task force received complaints, and the staff provided information about complaints where transfers, where registrants were confused by the communications sent to them, and undertook a transfer or, and undertook a renewal of a, and they inadvertently transferred to a registrar because they thought that actually was their registrar of record.  And that was a, it was a transfer they authorized.  I'll have to think about how I say this, but you guys know what I'm talking about here.


ROSS (ph):  Yes I would, and you know, I completely hear what you're saying Jeff (ph), and I don't entirely disagree with you but it's, I think at the end of the day this is definitely, as Marilyn correctly calls it out, an anti-gaming provision.  And there was a huge volume of feedback from registrants that says this can't be the way it is because it's crazy.  I don't understand half the stuff I get from you guys.  So yes, you know, so maybe I'll put an S beside it, which means it's ...


CADE:  Can we ...


ROSS (ph):  ... possible, but ...


JEFF (ph):  Well let me ask a question before you do that.  Was this, was this particular point in the interim report?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  And I don't think it was.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Was it?  Where?  I'm looking for it.


CADE:  Well ...


ROSS (ph):  It would have been in there somewhere else.  I can pull it out by email later.


CADE:  But let me, let me, let me, let me go to the anti-gaming issue here, or anti-spamming or whatever we call, anti-slamming, sorry.  If this were worded in that way Jeff (ph), if it were, if it described the effort to prevent slamming, we clearly had input on that.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.  But my point is I don't remember seeing it in the interim report and out there for comment.  I know what we received comments from one side, but to my recollection it wasn't in there ...


CADE:  OK, well here's the assignment for you.  Your assignment is to look in the interim report and I think we probably ought to try to reword this as an, as clearly an anti-slamming provision.


ROSS (ph):  But that's not what it is Marilyn.  Anti-slamming only applies to gaining registrars, not losing.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Well actually.  Oh, I see, this is just - I'm sorry.  Yes, I got you.


ROSS (ph):  This is, this is to prevent, here's a theoretical that's very likely.  Without this, without this provision here's the best way to get a registrant to NACK their own transfer request, send them a, send them a request that looks like a password retrieval request that actually turns out to be a transfer denial request, which means the registrant is now stuck in their own loop because they don't understand what it is that they're agreeing to or not agreeing to.


CADE:  Ross (ph) would you do me a favor, would you write me an email about the business problem we're trying to solve.  Write it to me and to Jeff (ph) and to Dan Hallerin (ph).


ROSS (ph):  OK, I will mark it out with U-N as well.




JEFF (ph):  I correct my - this statement was in the interim report.


ROSS (ph):  It was drastically different in language though wasn't it?  Like this is substantially clearer, isn't it Jeff (ph) or?


JEFF (ph):  Yes, the second sentence is, the first sentence is the same, the second sentence, which explains it is much clearer.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  Moving on to 13, I'll let you guys read it.


CADE:  I am going to offer you an editorial comment.  Where you can, break these long ones into two paragraphs, and I would put a paragraph in between the word proceed and the presumption.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  Done.


JEFF (ph):  And then actually a third paragraph after that sentence.


CADE:  Right.  So make it, make it three points, right Jeff (ph)?  That will make it much easier.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  Done.  You've broken my will on the editorial stuff.  Is this, are these three statements consensus based?


CADE:  Well the first one is I believe.  I believe the first one is.  The second one, the presumption will be that the gaining has received and authenticated, I think the second one is.  And then if the, then the losing, and I think the third one is.


ROSS (ph):  Jeff (ph)?


JEFF (ph):  Except for those couple of registrars I think, yes.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  14.  I'll take all the editorial you want to throw my way.  I think it's two sentences, if you ask ...


JEFF (ph):  I think registrants, as much as I hate to admit it, I think there in the last sentence, I think there are some registrars that will dispute that.  But we haven't seen anything, so I'm not going to say, I'm not going to shoot ourselves in the foot.


CADE:  And I'm going to make an editorial, so just strike the words in other words, and put in parentheses the losing registrar has other mechanisms available, close parens after that.  That way we, that's explanatory, it's good to leave it there, but we don't need people, you know, it's the statement is really losing registrar must not employ transfer processes as mechanism to secure payment for treatment from a, payment for services.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  The second to the last sentence, we're just removing the word further, capitalizing the I in, and ...


CADE:  Yes, yes, yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... and just marking then the clause is now numbered 14 to 15 with a C.  And then moving on.


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  To 15.  Your 15.


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  My 32 now I think. 


CADE:  You know, I know we had said this, have we said anywhere, have we said anywhere, and maybe it goes in the narrative that the registrant, have we described the fact that there is a change in the role of the administrative contact?


ROSS (ph):  This is it.


CADE:  Well in the narrative then, what we're going to have to add Ross (ph) is something like, you know, historically there have been three kinds of contact data, which is gathered and provided in the, in the publicly accessible WHOIS service. 


ROSS (ph):  OK, fair enough.  Those are your notes, not mine.  I have made two minor changes to the last sentence.




ROSS (ph):  In all cases the authority of the registrant supercedes that of the administrative contact.  Does anybody disagree with that change?  OK.  I'm marking 15 with a C.  I think it's one of the most positive recommendations we've made. 


JEFF (ph):  Which one, the gaining registrar must use the standard form?


ROSS (ph):  No, the administrative contact for the registrants are the authorities.  That's one of the ones I'm most personally pleased with. 


JEFF (ph):  I'm putting that, just so you know Ross (ph), I'm putting that into the dot (ph), new star registrar agreement for you.


ROSS (ph):  Great, great.  I have a legacy now. 


CADE:  Hey, totally off the mark here, and I apologize about that. 


ROSS (ph):  This is the, this is the halftime show, go ahead.


CADE:  It would be, I'd be interested in talking to you at some point about the growth of the IP business in that country, Jeff (ph).


JEFF (ph):  Growth of ISPs in China?


CADE:  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  You mean of the Ministry of Communications and Propaganda?


CADE:  No, the growth of the ISP industry, let's ...


ROSS (ph):  Kidding. 


CADE:  Transcripts.


ROSS (ph):  Indeed.


JEFF (ph):  I'd rather deal with ISPs that are located, headquartered outside of China.


CADE:  Maybe, maybe not.


JEFF (ph):  That do business in China.


CADE:  Maybe, maybe not. 


JEFF (ph):  Well that's just my ...


CADE:  That's why we should talk.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  So that was subtle guys.  16.


JEFF (ph):  How about kids while we're at it?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Yuck.


ROSS (ph):  16 folks. 


JEFF (ph):  Standard form of authorization, we're changing that to just form of authorization?


ROSS (ph):  No, standardized form of authorization. 


JEFF (ph):  Oh, but non-capitalized, or capitalized, or?


ROSS (ph):  No, it's defined.


CADE:  It needs to be capitalized, because then we define it, don't we?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Oh, OK.  All right, let's see. 


ROSS (ph):  And I think it's two sentences.


JEFF (ph):  ICANN should support the development through staff consultation and ...


CADE:  I like this one.  I think this is a really good one.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Both Cs?  I've broken out the first sentence.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Oh my gosh, you guys are still here?  I'm back.


ROSS (ph):  Ha ha.


JEFF (ph):  Oh my God, you're - you actually came back.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Well they said it was an emergency meeting, it turned out to be cake.  Sorry.


ROSS (ph):  Hey, at least you got cake.


JEFF (ph):  Yes it is getting kind of late, isn't it?


ROSS (ph):  We're almost there guys.  Well we're not, but I'll just keep cheerleading, and maybe you'll believe me.


JEFF (ph):  Holy cow. 


ROSS (ph):  Let's look at 16 as an omnibus.  It's broken out sufficiently I believe.  Half of it's recommendation, half of it's not.  In other words half of it is must have, half of it is nice to have.  I think it's well supported.  I'm going to mark it all with a C and move to 17.


JEFF (ph):  Sure.  You're wearing us down.  Your 17 is our 18?


ROSS (ph):  Nope, 17 is 17.  I keep this stuff straight in my head.  Gaining registrars must maintain copies of the standardized form of authorization by the registrant or administrative contact of record. 


JEFF (ph):  For how long?  Didn't we say in accordance with your ...


ROSS (ph):  As per the standard - you're right.  Document retention policies of the contract, so I'll change that.  But you get the idea.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  But that's the existing policy, so ...


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph);  ... if there's not consensus on 17 we're screwed.  18.  This is where we modify the policy again.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  No objections?  Moving on to 19. 


JEFF (ph):  Yes.  This is all the easy stuff.


ROSS (ph):  Is this one sentence?


CADE:  Well on, you know I ...


ROSS (ph):  Are you still on 17 Marilyn?


CADE:  I was away for just a minute.  So and we did agree though that the substance, the A-B-C get moved to a, to a appendix, right?


ROSS (ph):  16A does not.  16B and C do.


CADE:  17A, B and C.


ROSS (ph):  No, 16.


JEFF (ph):  No.  Ross (ph) your numbers are off man.


ROSS (ph):  Have I lost track in my head?


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  I'm fine with you, yes.  But the point is just, keep the principle statement there, and then give some examples as you, as B and C that support for the concept, blah, blah, blah.  I'm in agreement.  Keep going, sorry.


JEFF (ph):  We're with your Ross (ph).


ROSS (ph):  All right.  Moving on to what I think is 19, but you guys are just being difficult on, copies of the reliable evidence of identity must be kept with.  Any objection to marking that with a C?


CADE:  I like it.  And I think there's support for it.  I haven't seen, I haven't seen any objection to it.


ROSS (ph):  It's a minor enhancement to the current documents - you know what I mean.


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  20.  In instances where the losing registrar has. 


CADE:  Can I ask a question about three business days, if it involves a transmission between the United States and, let's just say hypothetically it were between or anyone else located in the United States and Melbourne?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Righty?  I send overnight delivery and two-day delivery and five and seven day guaranteed delivery to my business unit guys in Japan, Australia and Europe, and the delivery to Australia is guaranteed two-days.


ROSS (ph):  Bruce (ph) ain't getting originals out of me Marilyn, which means he's getting a fax. 


CADE:  OK, I just want, I just want ...


ROSS (ph):  Unless you guys are mad at him as well as Canada, and you're choking like their telephone system, I think they can get it within about five minutes.


CADE:  The postal service, I just want to point something out.  The postal ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... service that I pay guaranteed delivery two to three days, usually takes five to seven.  So if it were necessary to provide, I'm just noting this.  If it were necessary to provide notarized statements or anything of that nature, or it couldn't be done by fax, which I'm not saying it couldn't be don't by fax, then ...


ROSS (ph):  Well here's something for your editorial.  I don't really care if it happens up to 15 days later.  To be honest.  I don't think it really makes a material difference between three and 15.


CADE:  Well can, could we, because I think maybe the number of days will get slammed on again.  Could we ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Well, we need to - sorry to interrupt, but we need to understand that there's a five-day period within which the transfer will become ...


CADE:  Great.  So let's say that then.  So in a, in a, in a parenthesis it would say, given the five-day transfer limitation the task force recommends three business days.




ROSS (ph):  Yes, but the transfer's already gone through by this point, so ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  No it hasn't, right?  That's the point.


ROSS (ph):  Sure it has.


CHRISTINE (ph):  If I'm the gaining registrar and I submit a transfer request, and the losing registrar says well, how do I know, let me see your authorization, the gaining registrar has three business days because ...


CADE:  Right.  That's right, yes.


CHRISTINE (ph):  ... it only gives the losing registrar, you know, a day and a half or so to look at it and evaluate it, otherwise it's going to get automatically ACKed.  That's how I read this.


CADE:  If there ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  This is not an after the fact thing.


ROSS (ph):  No, because the losing registrar doesn't get any opportunity to NACK based on any doubts they may have over documentation.  What they do have is ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes they do.


ROSS (ph):  No, no.  What they do have though is the right to appeal anything that's based on (INAUDIBLE) documentation. 


CHRISTINE (ph):  No, if there's, isn't there a ...


CADE:  Wait a minute, back up, back up, back up.  I think Christine (ph), that was my interpretation as well.  Let's say that Christine (ph), let's say that Marilyn Cade is moving her, is transferring, right?  And so ...


ROSS (ph):  Before we get into examples, let's just move quickly to 20.  And there's nothing in there that says losing registrar can deny a transfer when they don't believe that the gaining registrar has filled out the proper documentation.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Well sure, reasonable dispute over the identity of the registrant.  Did they think the document was forged for whatever reason, or if they think the document was not, for some reason, given by the registrant. 


ROSS (ph):  That's a pretty broad interpretation ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Then I think so.


ROSS (ph):  ... of dispute over identity though Christine (ph).


CADE:  No.  Ross (ph) we don't want to, we don't want to leave a hole in this, right?  I mean I think, I had thought back over here, that if the, in the process, so I give information to the gaining registrar.  And then I get queried by the losing registrar, and I could within my company hypothetically, I could be the administrative contact, and the registrant could respond to the losing registrar.  That would be possible to happen.


ROSS (ph):  Yes that's an F clause here.


CADE:  So if that happened, then the losing registrar has reason to question the identity of the person who requested the transfer.  It's a problem inside the registrant household, but that's not clear to either one of the other two guys.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, but the escape route there is F.  Express written objection, right?


CHRISTINE (ph):  But we're not trying to create an escape route, we're trying to make this ...


ROSS (ph):  I know, what I'm saying in the case that Marilyn describes, the registrant can object and overturn the transfer request.


CADE:  The registrant has ...


ROSS (ph):  Right?


CADE:  ... hasn't been, the registrant would only know to ACK that after they've - so let's just follow my example here.  Marilyn Cade transfers her domain name.  And she's, Marilyn Cade is the administrative contact, she transfers the domain name.  Her boss is contacted, because he's really the registrant.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  And he says, because Marilyn forgot to advise him, he says oh no, I didn't authorize that.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  Now the losing registrar is going to go to the gaining registrar ...


ROSS (ph):  No, no, no.  You're missing an important step with the registrar, losing registrar saying to the registrant at that point is quickly send me an email describing this, so that I can NACK the transfer.  No need to talk to the gaining registrar.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes, that's true in that case, but certainly there are, there are, there are other cases that, that's the whole point, otherwise what is even the point of letting the losing registrar have the ability to look at the form of authorization?  I mean this is, this is supposed to be that they can look at it and in their own mind validate it, and if there's a reasonable dispute that results from this authorization they should be able to NACK it, that's ...


CADE:  Well Christine (ph), let me, let me subdivide this for both of us.  Here's what I hear happening.  I hear happening the fact that in your mind Ross (ph), you are thinking this process is only after the transfer, and that Christine (ph) and I may have been thinking it also applied as verification before the transfer.


ROSS (ph):  I'm just saying it can happen at any time but to limit the timeframe is ...


CADE:  Well, here's what's not clear, I'm not ...


ROSS (ph):  ... largely irrelevant because the losing registrar that's got concerns, such as the ones that I think you're trying to describe ...


CADE:  I'm raising a totally different point.


ROSS (ph):  ... can file their objection and request the documentation now.  I've got real concerns for this transfer, I want to see the documentation now.  Give it to me now, right?


CADE:  Ross (ph), I have a very different question.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  In this process flow, it is not clear to me, and I am the benchmark as opposed, because I'm uninformed sort to speak.  What is not clear to me as we walk through this process is where, in the paper, we switched from a, the transfer has already taken place, so I was following it through as still being in the pending transfer timeframe.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right, if it's not there's not even a need for the three day time limit.


ROSS (ph):  There's no temporal distinction at all with this clause.


CHRISTINE (ph):  But can I, can I give you an example ...


ROSS (ph):  Three days ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  ... let's ...


ROSS (ph):  ... three days, let me, let me just give you my full interpretation of this.  The three days is simply to insure that the losing registrar gets the documentation quickly so that if there is a problem they can either NACK the transfer if they're in the five day window, and if they're not, that they can file a dispute and get it fixed quickly.


CADE:  OK.  Before Christine (ph) responds, I'm going to give you the same piece of feedback I just gave you.


ROSS (ph):  I heard what you said.


CADE:  You know too much, so all of this made sense to you.


ROSS (ph):  Of course it did.


CADE:  You're dealing with ...


ROSS (ph):  I told you I didn't want to hear about uninformed registrants Marilyn.


CADE:  At some place in this process, and we're trying to boil it down, and then I want to go to Christine's (ph) comment as well.  That if you're, if regardless of what the conclusion is, that the conclusion is that this is the same either before the transfer happens or after the transfer happens, then say that. 


ROSS (ph):  But sure, exactly.  OK.  Sure.


CADE:   Now how is that ...


ROSS (ph):  But ...


CADE:  ... now we can have the argument about ...


ROSS (ph);  ... but also keep in mind too that we now move from a document that described and recommended a process, to a document that describes and recommends policies.  All processes move to the appendices as ...


CADE:  I don't know, I agree.  But Christine (ph) does that, does that help?  I mean ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Not really, and I think I want to back up just a minute, and you guys are going to hate me for this, but we really need to talk about ...


ROSS (ph):  Oh come on sport, it's your last day, be nice.


CHRISTINE (ph):  If the losing registrar requests from the gaining registrar a copy of the authorization, and from that they see that it was signed, let's say ...


ROSS (ph):  It would ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  ... in Japanese characters, and this person was purporting to be Jane Smith from Iowa, you don't think the losing registrar has grounds to deny the transfer based on the dispute over the identity of the person who gave the authorization?


ROSS (ph):  See in my mind dispute over identity is something that goes back to the existing exhibit B.  And you can tell me what this means, because it's part of your job, or your current job until tomorrow sort of.  In my mind that was always the clause, in other words if there's, if it's unclear as to who owns the domain name, that means there is a dispute over the identity.  Like a court proceeding or some sort of an argument, or just something a registrar doesn't want to get involved in.


CHRISTINE (ph):  That's certainly one element.


ROSS (ph):  Right.  So it's, that was, that was, that was the element as far as I ever read into this.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes, I've always had a different understanding, but in any event ...


ROSS (ph):  Please describe that understanding, because that's obviously shaping your expectation for what ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right, no you're right.  Both of our, both of our different understandings of that issue are shaping our comments here.  Where's Jeff (ph)?  Jeff (ph) are you there?


JEFF (ph):  I'm here and I can add no clarity to that.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Help me.


JEFF (ph):  I think that provision is sufficiently vague and the contract says it could mean either of what you said.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, but I'm not saying that we need to come to an agreed upon definition of what it means, I'm not, I'm not unhappy with the vagueness.  Whether it means this is the clause, or whether it means that it's a not really dispute of identity, but a dispute over the authenticity of the documentation, I think is largely irrelevant.  What the real point is, is whether or not the three days is sufficient for the losing registrar to get their stuff quickly to achieve the outcome that we're proposing.  Which I believe is to either A, let them NACK the transfer, or B, file a dispute.  And all I was saying was the three days or was it 15 days, or whatever the negotiated settlement in between is, in my mind is mostly irrelevant, as long as it happens quickly.


JEFF (ph):  Well technically it has to happen within three otherwise they can't NACK.


CHRISTINE (ph):  This is the point that I was making, but then Ross (ph) said that's irrelevant because this paragraph is intended to cover an after-the-fact period of time.  I disagree with that.


ROSS (ph):  No I think it covers both.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, it does cover both.


CHRISTINE (ph):  OK, well I think I've gotten somewhere then, as long as your acknowledging that it also can cover the period of time ....


ROSS (ph):  Oh absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.




ROSS (ph):  But I think just in, as a matter of practice, we're going to find, at least for the first little while and I really don't want to see a lot of disputes coming out of this anyways, but presuming that we will see disputes, they're all going to be after the, only to be after-the-facts mostly anyways.  You're not going to have too many registrars disputing transfers that got NACKed, you're going to see a lot of retries, right?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Maybe, yes.


ROSS (ph):  Because it differs from the current construct where there really is no agreed upon process.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right.


JEFF (ph):  All right, but in that paragraph, I think it's the next sentence that I promised I would submit something on which I haven't yet.


ROSS (ph):  OK, sorry.  Which one Jeff (ph), are we moving on?


JEFF (ph):  Yes failure to provide documentation.  I need to provide wording, alternate wording for that part.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Because it ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes it's not grounds for reversal, it's grounds for a dispute, but yes.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  Yes, we all agreed on that.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.  So that's my, one of my items.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  So I've still marked it with a C.


CADE:  OK.  We got to be a little careful about, I'm going to have to go back and really look at this and look at the documentation again that we've received, and say that we did receive comments and we can point to consensus, or we received no objections and the task force believes, I'll go back and look at that.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  And keep in mind too Marilyn, it really is, other than the last sentence, a tightening up of the existing obligations, not ...


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... not a new concept.


CADE:  Yes, I know.  It's just that I have this awful feeling that in Amsterdam, that I am going to be the person sitting on the names council defending this line by line by line by line by line by line.  Jeff (ph) are you going to be in Amsterdam?


JEFF (ph):  Probably not.


ROSS (ph):  What if we have to defend everything line by line by line.  Sorry Jeff (ph), you answer, I'm sorry.


JEFF (ph):  That's all right ...


ROSS (ph):  That was just wrong for ...


JEFF (ph):  ... I probably will not be there.


CADE:  OK, well we'll talk about, we'll talk about, we'll talk about that later.


JEFF (ph):  OK.


ROSS (ph):  Mister.  21, or 20, losing registrar may deny a transfer request only in the following instances.


CADE:  And what's different about this and the, and the UDRP action, the court order?


ROSS (ph):  We removed the pending bankruptcy clause based on feedback from the GA.


JEFF (ph):  We added the word reasonable dispute.


ROSS (ph):  We added the word reasonable to the dispute, yes, and we added the E&F, which is no payment and express written objection.  Well is expressed objection in there now Christine (ph)?


CHRISTINE (ph):  I'm sorry?


ROSS (ph):  Is expressed objection in there now?  I don't think it is.


CHRISTINE (ph):  No.


ROSS (ph):  OK, so it's E&F are brand new concepts.


CADE:  You know ...


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... I would actually like to see number 22 - you may, you may not feel that it flows ...


ROSS (ph):  Which one, which one is 22?  May deny or may not deny?


CADE:  Actually it's the one you just read.


JEFF (ph):  May deny.


ROSS (ph):  OK.


CADE:  I would like to see this 22 and 23 moved up higher in the document, just think about that, don't, we're not going to do anything about it right now.  But it actually, I think both of these are really primary recommendations, they're pretty simple and getting them on the table earlier would be helpful.


ROSS (ph):  Fair enough.


JEFF (ph):  Hey Ross (ph) let me bring up a gaming point and see what you think.


ROSS (ph):  Whether I like it, or whether I'm going to put it into practice?


JEFF (ph):  Well I know others might.  If there's reasonable dispute over the identity of the registrant or administrative contact.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Now before it said reasonable, it said dispute over identity of the registrant.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  What if someone's trying to play games, and there's no dispute as to the identity of the registrant, but they're trying to just play games and say you know what, I don't think the administrative contact is the same.  When it's totally irrelevant to the transfer because the registrant sends in the request.


ROSS (ph):  But that's the beauty of the appeals process right?  I get to say like, what's going on here and I get to go take it to an arbitration panel and they give me lots of money, if I'm right ...


JEFF (ph):  Yes, OK.


ROSS (ph):  And if somebody's gaming ...


JEFF (ph):  But you understand the gaming that I'm talking about?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  Yes, and absolutely, and that's where, that's where I'm happy with the 75 percent solution in a lot of these cases


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  ... because we get to take them to the mat and stink (ph) them out financially, right?


JEFF (ph):  OK, yes.


ROSS (ph):  So try it.  Hey if you're willing to spend 100 bucks or 1,000 bucks, or whatever it costs to, you know, per instance, whatever it costs to process one of these complaints, either way ...


JEFF (ph):  Make that ...


ROSS (ph):  Right.  This might be a revenue opportunity depending on the good nature of the rest of the registrars, right?  So 22, folks.


JEFF (ph):  Going along.


ROSS (ph):  Any non-consensus items in there? 


JEFF (ph):  This is the next one now?


ROSS (ph):  Yes 20, it's the last one, yes.


CHRISTINE (ph):  23.


ROSS (ph):  May not deny. 


JEFF (ph):  Wait what's the, when the, in number C, domain name and registrar lock status, parentheses when the registrar not ...


ROSS (ph):  Oh, you know what?  That was something that I didn't ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  That was an either or situation, right?  We were talking about it last time.  We were trying to pick the better language.


JEFF (ph):  Yes, we just need to take out the when the registrar.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Right.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  That was just, OK, that was editorial I missed, sorry folks.


CADE:  OK, so we are ...


ROSS (ph):  23 is a consensus based recommendation?


CADE:  Yes.  23 is, my numbering's all off.  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  At the very last one.


CADE:  Yes.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  I don't disagree with that, so let's mark it with a C.


CADE:  Now the question that we're going to have to go back to Ross (ph), and we're going to have to do this, and I don't, so let's just, let me wrap up here because we all need to go.  So we're going to now make 24 a statement that Jeff (ph) is going to provide?  Right Jeff (ph)?


ROSS (ph):  Regarding the arbitration, yes.


CADE:  Yes.


JEFF (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  And so there will be 24 points of light, so to speak.


JEFF (ph):  It may, it maybe 20, number 24, 25 and 26.


CADE:  Yes but ...


ROSS (ph):  I think we're almost to size 30 actually.


CADE:  Whatever the number is.


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  OK.  Now ...


ROSS (ph):  Not 1,000, thank God.


CADE:  Right now we have no minority reports or statements.  We may end up with some statements from individual participants in the task force on specific things and that's ...


ROSS (ph):  Yes.


CADE:  ... that's OK.


ROSS (ph):  And we've also been told to expect one from Tim Ruiz (ph).


CADE:  A minority statement?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.




ROSS (ph):  Or comments on the final report or whatever ...


CADE:  Right, right, right.  We have, is there anything from, we have the letter that we've talked - there's anything from Alanna Broitman (ph) that we have not responded to?


ROSS (ph):  Not as far as I know.


CADE:  I haven't seen anything, I'm just thinking out loud here.  There will be a statement from the business constituency.  I believe I talked, when I talked to Ross (ph) but it's going to be, I think it's going to be a statement that's more laudatory to the importance of solving the problems than a specific detailed response, but I will verify that with them again.


ROSS (ph):  Let the record reflect that Marilyn meant Grant (ph), not Ross (ph).


CADE:  Oh I'm sorry.  Yes, let the record show that I did mean Grant (ph) who he represents the BC ...


ROSS (ph):  But let the record also reflect that I'd be happy to speak on the business constituencies half.


CADE:  Yes.  Hardly.  I have to talk to Mark (ph).  I'm expecting something from David (ph).


ROSS (ph):  Something?


CADE:  From David Sanfran (ph).


ROSS (ph):  Yes, but something?


CADE:  Oh, like a statement that says the IPC says roughly blah, blah, blah.


ROSS (ph):  OK.  And you know what, I'll also give you a commitment, and I'll see what I can get from my constituency, but I make no promises.


CADE:  Sure.  The non-commercials, I will go back to the two members of the non-commercial constituency who are on this task force, one of whom who we've never seen, Jamie Glove (ph) and Hawk Acoor (ph).  And I will see what Dan (ph) intends to do for the GA.


ROSS (ph):  Great.




ROSS (ph):  So Christine (ph), if I don't talk to you, have a wonderful life.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Thank you, you too.


ROSS (ph):  And tomorrow is your last day?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Sort of.  I'll be here for a couple of hours each on Monday and Tuesday, and a little bit on Wednesday, but for all intensive purposes tomorrow is it.


CADE:  What's your ...


JEFF (ph):  Don't talk ...


CADE:  ... and are you, are you going to send us your personal email so we can still check in with you?


ROSS (ph):  Don't do it.


CADE:  Christine (ph) we may have to.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Funny lady Marilyn.  Beth (ph) has me covered, trust me.  And you'll be happy to know that during this conversation I have summarized all of the postings that Danny Unger (ph) referred to ...


ROSS (ph):  That's good.


CHRISTINE (ph):  ... so I'm halfway there.


CADE:  Wonderful.


ROSS (ph):  Christine (ph), on behalf of the registrars I'd like the thank you for sticking it out with us.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Thanks Ross (ph), I appreciate hearing that ...


ROSS (ph):  Certainly ...


CHRISTINE (ph):  ... it's been nice working with all of you.


CADE:  And on behalf of the entire task force, the ones who are here can speak for themselves, you have been a tremendous addition and contributor to this Christine (ph), and I know many times it's been ...


ROSS (ph):  Boring?


CADE:  Boring.  Actually I was going to say many times it's been more fun than you were looking for.


CHRISTINE (ph):  That's pretty much what I was thinking as well.  No it has been fun, it's been a good time and it's been a good learning experience.  I appreciate that.


CADE:  But you should keep in touch with all of us.


ROSS (ph):  If you dare.


CADE:  If you dare.  I was, I meant more on a personal basis.


ROSS (ph):  Get off the phone and go eat some cake.


CADE:  So guys, we are wrapping up, we have a call next Tuesday.  And I think we all know we have work to do in between now and then.


ROSS (ph):  Indeed.


CADE:  Christine (ph) you want to make any parting words for the record?


CHRISTINE (ph):  Just caught me as I was hanging up.


ROSS (ph):  Goodbye is fine.


CHRISTINE (ph):  Thank you.  Bye.


ROSS (ph):  Thanks Christine (ph).


JEFF (ph):  Bye.  Thanks.


ROSS (ph):  Thank you folks.


CADE:  Bye.


ROSS (ph):  Bye.


CADE:  OK.  Are we through?


ROSS (ph):  Yes.  Yes, and I'm late, but if you want to call me after six I'm more than available.


CADE:  So I have to spend some time on the net looking for that puppy.


ROSS (ph):  About an hour and a half before I'm available again.


CADE:  OK.  Jeff (ph)?


ROSS (ph):  He's gone.


CADE:  Oh.  Thank you.


ROSS (ph):  Cheers.


CADE:  Bye.








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