WHOIS TASK FORCE
Teleconference
November 25, 2002

Attendees:
Marilyn Cade - Co-Chair
Antonio Harris – Co-Chair

Thomas Roessler – GA
Abel Wisman – GA
Kristy McKee – GA

Laurence Djolakian – IPC – Names Council
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Francis Coleman_ GNR Registry
Karen Elizaga – GNR Registry
Ken Stubbs – Registrars

Glen de Saint Géry DNSO Secretariat

Ram Mohan absent, no response

OPERATOR: Is – Miss Marilyn Cade is the host for the call. The conference ID is B as in boy, M as in Mary, C as in Charles 7031.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Hello, Marilyn. You are not going to sing (ph).

OPERATOR: Pardon me, this is the operator, recording is being added to your call.

MARILYN CADE: Thank you.

OPERATOR: OK.

GLEN (ph): Yes, Marilyn, I am on.

CADE: Hi Glen (ph).

GLEN (ph): Hi.

CADE: … nice note.

GLEN (ph): We’ve got to Thomas (ph), Kristy (ph), yourself and Laurence (ph)

STEVE METALITZ: Hi, Steve ph).

GLEN (ph): Laurence (ph) you were able to make it. Steve (ph), thank you.

KEN STUBBS (ph): Ken Stubbs (ph).

GLEN (ph): Thank you, Ken (ph).

STUBBS (ph): Do we have a lot of static on the line, or is it me – should I dial in again?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I don’t think it is static on the line, thank you.

CADE: It just came on the last few clicks.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I don’t think it will be – part of my line, so …

STUBBS (ph): I think it’s me. I think I am going to try dialing back in again anyway, just to make sure it isn’t me.

KAREN (ph): Hi, guys. It’s Karen (ph).

GLEN (ph): Hi Karen (ph).

KAREN (ph): Hi.

STUBBS (ph): Sorry, Marilyn, what did you say?

CADE: Ram (ph) – and I haven’t heard any response from Ram (ph) in any of my e-mails to him. You know, and I don’t- and I don’t hear him now either.

STUBBS (ph): This is Ken (ph), I just came back into the call.

CADE: Great. I think that’s – I think that’s better Ken (ph). I thought it was you or me – the static seems to be a bit improved. Unless, unless – I guess I should say …

STUBBS (ph): I don’t know whether you’ve changed phones in the last week or two Marilyn, but for some reason your voice over the last two conference calls has been very muted and very – it’s not as crisp, it’s like there was a – somebody needed to adjust the treble on a – hope you understand what I am saying?

CADE: Yes.

STUBBS (ph): Now I can hear you much better.

CADE: And I thought I was just trying to speak (ph) quieter.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: You better shout above the way (ph) it is done (ph) to you.

GLEN (ph): We are deaf!

CADE: I have changed phones and have a new speaker headset…

STUBBS (ph): Well I am sorry, but that does not mean – maybe it’s just me, but maybe …

CADE: No, no, I’ll try to do better. It is a difference. It’s a different phone and a different headset. And I think it does make a difference. OK, today’s agenda maybe, where’s the missing Ram Mohan (ph). But we’ll have to get past that, so why don’t we try to do what we had before us and then if we want to go through those sections and skip all through the operative (ph) sections very quickly and identify where within the taskforce (ph), we have any perception, that we don’t have consensus on a particular item, on the two recommendation sections, and then, just try to clarify on Kristy’s (ph) section, that she is leading on. It’ll be up for recommending, which is further work. So, this was not a consensus recommendation about what to do, but it’s a recommendation about further work and then you could go through that. I am frustrated. I’ve, unfortunately, gotten no response from Ram (ph) as to what’s going on in his section and I don’t know if any of you have heard from him.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I have not.

STUBBS (ph): Why don’t I see if I can track him down while you are there.

CADE: That would be great.

STUBBS (ph): OK, because I can raise him probably on ICQ.

CADE: OK.

STUBBS (ph): I’ll listen in, but I’ll try to track him down.

CADE: That would be great because we will have to figure out what we are going to say about that section, which is going to have to be very – very high level – even if we haven’t done anything signifICANNt on the output… so far. That would be great, Ken (ph). Should we go to – the section, first of all in order, so let’s go to Accountability (ph) if that’s OK with everyone. Glen (ph) are you – I don’t know where Karen(ph) is, because she had verified with me, she’d been on the call.

Glen(ph): Marilyn?

(ph). Yes, had verified he was going to be on this call?.

Glen (ph): I don’t think he verified, no. Do you want me to call him?

CADE: Yes.

GLEN (ph): I’ll do that.

CADE: Thank you.

ABEL (ph): Hello.

THOMAS (ph): Hello Able.

ABEL (ph): Hi Thomas (ph), how are you? Hi Kristy (ph).

KRISTY MCKEE (ph): Good morning.

ABEL (ph): I am here, I was here, but you were muted.

THOMAS (ph) (?): We are in the middle of the agenda.

CADE: Good, Abel (ph), welcome.

ABEL (ph): Thank you Marilyn, how are you?

CADE: Good, good. Let me go to Steve (ph), if that’s OK?

METALITZ (ph): Yes, on ‘accuracy’, I sent out the text on Friday that I think summarized where we are, or at least, it incorporated various comments that had been received and then I others – and some traffic today, some of which I am just now trying to catch up on. But Ken (ph) has raised two points, one having to do with 5-B and one having to do with use of the term, “The liberally provided incorrect data.” This is the term from the registrar’s advisory, it’s not an ICANN (ph) sent out. I don’t think it’s a term from the contract. And I proposed some language on that, which I think Ken (ph) found acceptable, which was basically to say that when we discuss what – how to – what type of documentation would be acceptable or correctly used data that we should also discuss when this scenario applies.

Other words whether – I don’t know that we’d come up with a definition, but we may be able to at least come up with some examples to guide registrars as to when it would appear that false data has been deliberately provided. The second issue that I think is still being discussed is 5-C – well actually it’s a – 5-C has a provision which says we should – ICANN (ph) should work with registrars to monitor the specific impact on a 15-day period, fifth day registrations in particular from developing countries, subject to (INAUDIBLE) inquiries. And there’s been some back and forth about whether something beyond that should be included here.

I can state my view, which is, that at this point, we do not know because ICANN (ph) does not have statistics on it, apparently. They don’t even know how many registrations have ever been cancelled for failure to answer an accuracy inquiry within 15 days. And so, I think, if we can gain some more information on that – find out if 15-day period that is been in place for three years, really is presenting a problem, then we move on a basis of some data rather than just the basis of what we think might be the case.

CADE: Yes.

METALITZ (ph): So I guess I would – our recommendation is that we would stick with the 5-C language, or maybe put in there a reference that we would need – try to encourage ICANN (ph) to try to develop the data as to how many cancellations are occurring in that scenario.

CADE: Yes.

METALITZ (ph): Better that we not recommend a change in the registrar accreditation agreement on that subject right now.

THOMAS (ph) (?): I have one question on this one. The cond (ph) language from the RAA (ph) seems to say that when a registrant gets a maturity inquiry, and doesn’t respond within 15 days, he is in material breach of contract, and that this is – there can be a basis for cancellation of the registration – of the registrant file. Is there any language, which can actually generate obligation for registrars to really, strictly, stick with the 15 days, or does this only mean after 15 days, the registrar can cancel the registrations that are enforced.

STUBBS (ph): Well Thomas (ph), can I respond to that, Marilyn?

CADE: Sure, go ahead.

STUBBS (ph): Yes, and please correct me if I am wrong, folks, but it would seem to me that enforcement of the 15-day provision seems to be somewhat at the whim at this point in time – can you hear me? Or, am I on you?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I can hear you all right …

ABEL (ph): I can hear you.

STUBBS (ph): OK, fine Abel (ph). Seems to be the enforcement of the 15-day deletion penalty appears to be still at the whim of the registrar, but based on the actions that ICANN (ph) took with Verisign (ph) over those names, it would seem to me that ICANN (ph) more-or-less expects the registrar to enforce the 15-day rule, and if they don’t, in the future, there maybe sanctions against the registrars for, in fact, not enforcing that rule. My concern, basically, is that – it has to do with the concept of modifying the registrar accreditation agreements. That’s going to be a rather unusual process because it’s not been done before. And having them involved in negotiations for contracts with ICANN (ph) in the past, I find that these things are better accomplished all in one fell swoop, rather than going back again and trying to modify or amend the registrar accreditation agreements again.

THOMAS (ph): Ken (ph), I am sorry there, sorry, there but what accreditions (ph) …

METALITZ (ph): I am sorry. I used the term ‘- in one fell swoop,’ it would be better if it could all be done at one time. If not, I am afraid what may happen, is that, there maybe an over reluctance on ICANN’s (ph) part to modify the registrar accreditation agreements until this information – until we can get a better experience – summary on – these 15 days. So what I was trying to do was to see, if we couldn’t arrive at something where we were comfortable with the wording that would allow some flexibility in there, if it is determined that 15 days is not an adequate time period, and that’s kind of how I feel about it.

My personal feeling, is that the registrars will probably put up a bit of a stink about the 15 day rule and then somebody will come along and say, “well, gee, it’s been that way for three years,” but, really, it hasn’t been effectively enforced as far as we know. Now maybe somebody is going to be able to pull some numbers out of a hat and make me a – make me wrong in this issue. I’m just going to make sure that if we do it, we could try to get it done all at one time and get it done the right way.

STUBBS (ph) (?): You know, I understand your concern Steve (ph), but, I am also concerned about the fact that, even if we go into a brazen redemption situation after the 15 days, effectively, the site is taken down. So, if somebody loses the ability to have a presence on the internet because of the fact that it wasn’t effectively communicated to them, to begin with, that can really hurt people, especially, some of the small companies. And that’s what I am looking at. I know you are looking at it from an abuse standpoint.

I am looking at it from the standpoint of the majority of the registrants, who, if they make mistakes, are not intentionally doing them in most cases, and even if they intentionally do them, they are not intentionally doing them for the purposes, that, in my opinion, would be of most concern to the intellectual property constituency. They may, in fact, be putting in inaccurate information, because of the perception of spam, or even in the case of many people privacy issues. So, that’s my opinion. Thanks for hearing me out.

CADE: OK. And let me – is there (ph) on the call?

GLEN (ph): Yes Marilyn, I am trying to get through to Tony(ph). He’s – I think got a voice mail on his cell phone.

CADE: OK. What about his phone office number?

GLEN (ph): I’ve tried the office – I have tried the office number and that’s just got a voice mail on it too. I will try call him a

CADE: You know Glen (ph) (INAUDIBLE) …

GLEN (ph): Yes, that’s right.

CADE: OK, I guess you people have breakfasted …

GLEN (ph): Sure. You are looking for breakfast at two?

CADE: Yes, don’t worry about that. I’ll just sit forth on this. Look Glen (ph) and I were just on the weak Rattford (ph) call and the issue that, of course, they’re discussing is, what to do after – whatever the time…

METALITZ (ph): Marilyn, I can hardly understand you.

CADE: All right, whatever the WHOIS taskforce is discussing the time – what to do after the WHOIS task force(ph) recommend deletion. So, they are not by any means, getting involved in what we are doing, but they are looking at deletion, generally, and what should happen once we recommend that a name be deleted. There is an assumption that redemption grace would apply. Well, redemption grace gives another 13 days, right?

STUBBS (ph) (?): But it – still, even during a redemption and grace period, the purpose of the redemption and grace period was originally to protect against inadvertent deletions, principally, because of a communication issue regarding payment on renewals and so forth. It still presumes – correct me if I am wrong please, redemption and grace still presumes that the name will be taken down and will be removed from, you know, the domain will grow dark during that 13-day period. And that’s what I am concerned about – and that is, we do not effectively communicate with somebody and we take their name down – in the case of redemption and grace, in most issues that I have seen there, there have been continuing attempts at getting the registrant to renew the name. Any good registrar is going to start billing in 60 days out minimum.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

STUBBS (ph) (?): And so, you have a different – I mean hypothetic way, I can look you in the eye and say, “Marilyn, I have been trying to get you to pay your bill for 60 days, dear. If you don’t pay your bill, I am going to take you down and you are going to have to pay a reconnection fee.” Why – but if I am coming out of the blue with a notification to you that you’ve got to correct this data, and if you don’t correct it in 15 days I am taking you down, you’re liable to turn around and say to me, “Ken (ph), now wait a minute, I mean my administrative contact is no longer with me. I didn’t get the bill, I didn’t get the notification, you sent it to me in the mail and I still haven’t gotten it.”

CADE: Right.

STUBBS (ph): You know, that’s what I am concerned about.

CADE: Well, I think it’s fair to say that ICANN (ph) has not been enforcing the 15-day up till now, and so, there is not standard information on the impact of enforcing the 15 days regime (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I think – may I Marilyn?

CADE: Yes.

KEN STUBBS: … I mean, we are talking about the 15-day period, but, is there any description on what steps the registrar or registry is obliged to take, in order to contact the owner of the domain. I mean, we are just talking about sending mails and no e-mail, then, 15 days is ridiculous. We talking about sending normal mail and we are talking air mail and snail mail, then we still talking about a period that’s impossible. I mean a mail from America, if it’s not going registered airmail then it can easily take four weeks before it gets to Europe.

CADE: Yes, can I – let me, let me …

KEN STUBBS: Shouldn’t we, shouldn’t we be able to …

CADE: Can I? Hold on – can I just get us back in order for just another – thank you for your contribution. Can I just finish my statement, and then we can take comments on my statement?

KEN STUBBS: Yes, OK.

CADE: And then I get who want to be in the queue, is that right?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes, sure.

KRISTY McKEE: I’d like to be in the queue – Kristy(ph).

McKEE(ph): I’d like to be in the queue, OK?

CADE: OK. What I am trying to do is help us get to where we have consensus within the group. Where we have documentation that supports consensus and where we may not have consensus, because, that’s what we are trying to do here. And here is my assessment of this. Putting my finger to the wind, reading what we’ve gotten so far, looking through the discussion and hearing the questions that are raised within the taskforce, it seems to me that the 15 day is not – that we don’t have enough input to know that if the 15 days is enforced, whether or not, there will be harm to the registrants unfairly. We get – I don’t believe, no.

What we have, is experience from some of us who try the same things internationally, and are familiar with the facts that postal service varies significantly country to country, and depending on which direction you are flying. If – since we are – do know we are probably dealing with situations where e-mail is probably one of the things that is in error. So, the question that is on the table, is whether 15 days is adequate, and do we actually have enough documentation to recommend, one way or the other, on 15 days.

My read of this is, we actually don’t have factual information in hand that would document whether 15 days is enough or not. We do have some questions about whether an extension of some short, fixed period is needed, and that I believe the taskforce saying, that redemption grace is not a substitution, one way or the other. And, I just want to comment on the last point first, because redemption grace is there for a different reason, it does make the fact go bad (ph) and just (ph) what comments on whether redemption grace is an option for a solution, if we need a solution.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: My assessment on that …

THOMAS (ph): May I ask about the question? Sorry for stepping in.

CADE: … who else just joined us?

TONY HARRIS (ph): Just incase, Tony Harris (ph) is here. He arrived just 10 minutes.

CADE: Hi Tony (ph), welcome. Yes, Thomas (ph) please do ask about the question.

FRAN COLEMAN (ph): Also Fran Coleman (ph) from GNR (ph).

GLEN (ph): Hey, Frank (ph).

CONNORS (ph): Hey hello, how are you?

CADE: Yes, I am fine.

THOMAS (ph): Just to be sure if I understand you correctly, Marilyn, the correction would redemption grade combined with rigid 15-day response period would be sufficient, right?

CADE: That’s not what I asked, but I am happy to have it attend …

THOMAS (ph): I am trying, I am trying to understand what you are asking?

CADE: Yes, that’s not what I asked but let me, let me ask it again. Redemption grade is a recommendation – the need for redemption grace period is the recommendation of this taskforce, yes or no.

STEVE METALITZ: Yes. I think it is. I mean, it’s in8A, it says that the sanction other than cancellation of the main name, should be considered and then it goes on to talk about redemption grace, it says, this is also going to be discussed …

CADE: So can I just take – can I just hear from anyone on the taskforce, is there any disagreement that the taskforce, recommend the provision of redemption grace period.

ABEL (ph) (?): I have another question on this case. Redemption grace period, which makes it look like (ph) it kicks in after the registrar tells the registry to delete the main name?

CADE: That’s right.

ABEL (ph) (?): So the recommendation we are making right now is that, before any redemption grace period would kick in, there should be an additional hold period. Just like to be sure we are clear about it.

CADE: We promise to reflect…

ABEL (ph) (?): We have the hold period, we’ve got the deletion, does the hold period have to expire at some point, at which point the deletion will kick in and refute (ph) the mechanism. But now we have inquiry …

THOMAS (ph) (?): But what would happen during the hold period. Because I don’t understand what the difference is, between the hold period and the redemption grace period.

ABEL (ph) (?): The difference is, during the hold period, the registrar can easily can get the main name back into his own, but with the redemption grace period would have reporting requirements towards ICANN (ph) and all kinds of complications.

CADE: The redemption grace period is not – I don’t believe it’s a direct substitute for any – for this time period where the registrar is trying to contact the registrant and find out what their will is. It does provide a – it’s a safety mechanism and was designed as a safety mechanism. It isn’t – and it also does make the site dark (ph).

METALITZ (ph): Marilyn, can I get in the queue on that question?

CADE: Yes, that’s what I wanted, I wanted to clarify whether or not we are supporting a redemption grace period as a safety valve after the other decisions first before we go into a discussion about the period during which the registrant is given a chance to correct the data. And I heard from Steve (ph) that he believes that we are recommending a redemption grace period as a safety – you don’t mind I am paraphrasing here, it does provide a safety valve but everybody needs to understand it does not have the same characteristics as being on hold at the registrar level. So do I – is there any other discussion about redemption grade?

METALITZ (ph): Yes, this is Steve (ph).

CADE: OK. Good, OK.

METALITZ (ph): Whether it’s a hold or redemption grace, the practical impact is that the site goes dark, and I would – yes it is a safety valve, a safety net, but I would suggest that if there were any data about what happens in these situations, which there isn’t, that 99 percent of the legitimate cases would be resolved because once the site goes dark there will quickly be contact between the registrant and the registrar. A contact – excuse me Marilyn, can I finish?

CADE: Sure.

METALITZ (ph): Contact …

CADE: I just want to ask you a question?

METALITZ (ph): OK, well then – when I am done, you can ask a question. Contact that would have happened before hand, if the accurate contact data had been submitted. So, I do think it ameliorates the problem but, I also think that our basic problem is, as Marilyn has said, if we don’t really have any data on how this will work – I think Ken (ph) is also right when he said, that in fact, we don’t have rigid enforcement of the 15-day rule and I think if we, if we encourage or try to get ICANN (ph) to collect the data on what is happening in these situations, well the much better – we’ll be in a much better position to make a meaningful recommendation after that data is got (ph). Thank you.

CADE: Let me just – let me just clarify the question I wanted to ask and then let’s take comments unless – many sites that are registered actually are not live.

METALITZ (ph): Right.

CADE: So there is no, there actually is no DNS (ph) associated with them and in that case, the harm would be, to perhaps, losing a name but it wouldn’t necessarily be direct harm to any commerce site, if it’s not actually live. Now, some sites of course, are registered for defensive (ph) reasons or because they need to point through …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I am back.

CADE: We didn’t realize – we knew that we lost someone but we weren’t sure who it was. Welcome back.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I was in the queue, thank you Marilyn. We were just getting interesting (ph) …

CADE: So, let me just make sure that what Steve (ph) laid out his view of (INAUDIBLE) hold and that 15 days period now that’s in the RAA (ph) – the question that is on the table from some of the taskforce participants is whether that period needs to be revised. I am – I just want to be sure, I am trying to get one item off the table; regardless of how we resolve this question. There is support for application for redemption grace period, right?

METALITZ (ph): I think that’s correct.

CADE: OK. Steve.

METALITZ (ph): Yes, that’s right.

CADE: OK, let’s go to the main question then and that is: if should the 15 days be extended in any way – right now the recommendation in the paper – in our recommendation is that ICANN (ph) should monitor the impact of 15 days. We would probably – we might if we keep our recommendation, we might want to make a suggestion of how long they should monitor it before assessing whether any change is needed. So when we go back to what about the 15 days, and I have several people in queue – we had Steve (ph), we had Kristy (ph), we had Abel (ph), Thomas (ph) did you want to be in queue?

THOMAS (ph): No, I think I am …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes, take me in after Thomas (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And me too, Marilyn, in the queue as well.

CADE: OK.

HARRIS (ph): We’ll be at the end Tony Harris (ph).

CADE: OK.

STUBBS (ph): Marilyn you are sounding discouraged dear.