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.

CADE: OK. Not totally (ph) put off at all. Let’s start with – OK, I am confused on who is first, I think its Kristy (ph).

MCKEE (ph): All right, I’ll be first, thank you. I wanted to add to 5-C, that I would like to see – this is Kristy McKee (ph) by the way, everyone. I would like to see in 5-C, a statement of concern; that the 15 days may not be sufficient and just to, kind of, add it in again, so that people are very clear that we’re not sure that it’s sufficient – and we are sure that we are recommending that this be researched. The second point here was – the answer to the second question about the redemption grace period, and I do think the redemption grace period is an acceptable thing, after we determine what to do first.

However, I would like – would like if we were going to keep the 15 days to see us recommend a hold period beyond the 15 days where the main name service is not removed. So the site does not go dark, so that there are at least 30 days that the site still stays live, while the registrar is trying to get a hold of them. And I don’t know if we have consensus on this, I just really liked the idea of going on hold, but I didn’t understand it meant losing the site’s workability. I’d like to see a site standby for as long as possible. Thank you.

Thomas ROESSLER: I have a question to that.

CADE: You have a clarification question to that or …

THOMAS ROESSLER: A clarification, Marilyn.

CADE: Yes, go ahead.

THOMAS ROESSLER: I would like – just like to know, Kristy (ph), what would be the difference between the kind of (INAUDIBLE) data that you are suggesting, and the fully operational file? What would differentiate us from really doing nothing?

MCKEE (ph): Well nothing. It would just – it’s just another way to – not really change the contract, but to keep – while we are moving though this transitional stage and people are going to feel secure having accurate data in the Who Is database. I am just – just a little bit more padding (ph) of what I am recommending because, some of the registrars are not very easy to communicate with, and we’ve got to take into account that some clients are also not very adept at modifying their information, and I feel like – I agree with what Steve (ph) has said, and I agree with what Ken (ph) has said, and I agree with what Thomas (ph) has said, and yet I still have a big reservation from client base that says I was to take off for 30 days to attend meetings, they would be in a bad position if they were, you know, CEO only, around. And I just don’t think 15 days is enough, and I’d like to see us try to do something to help alleviate the pressure.

THOMAS ROESSLER: Thank you for the clarification.

MCKEE: Sure.

CADE: OK, are you ready to move on?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

CADE: OK. Steve (ph), were you, were back in queue on this – at this point, can I go on to Abel (ph) and come back to you?

METALITZ (ph): Why don’t you go on?

CADE: OK. Abel (ph). We lost him.

CADE: OK. I have Thomas (ph) next and then Ken (ph) …

THOMAS (ph): Well I’ll make use of the compatibility mode (ph) to you for starting the queue (ph)

CADE: OK. Ken (ph)?

STUBBS (ph): There are a couple of issues hear, Marilyn. First of all it was a comment that you made that was kind of hoping that, may be, Karen (ph) would jump in. But there was a comment made about being notified by the registry. Correct me if I am wrong, Karen (ph), but I don’t believe that any of the existing registries at this point in time, who have the authority, or frankly, would really want to get involved in communicating directly with registrants on issues like that. Normally, it would be mandated back to the registrar, and in fact, many of the registries would be severely sanctioned by the registrars, if they attempted to do anything like that. Karen (ph), you’d go ahead respond if you want.

KAREN (ph): Wait, wait, and wait. If I said registry, I was mistaken in what I said.

STUBBS (ph): All right, I apologize.

CADE: Thank you for the clarification. And just to confirm what Ken (ph) said, we’ve had our hands slapped many-a-times. We definitely need to connect (ph) the registry.

STUBBS (ph): Sure.

KAREN (ph): Yes I want to re-second it. That was an error on my part. That’s a misstatement.

CADE: All right.

STUBBS (ph): That was the first thing. The second thing is – and I – it’s a little easier for me, because I believe Laurence (ph) is on, and there are couple of other people in Europe. I would like to put you, the Europeans into an August scenario with something similar to what Kristy (ph) said before. I think you’d all be quite agreeable with the fact that it would net be at all unusual for somebody in France, Spain or Italy to consider taking a two to three week holiday in the summer. And, if that person was responsible for dealing with those kinds of communications, we could have serious issues even on an email. Let’s see, I’ll give you an example, because I was representing one of my clients in an issue with a, you know, French intellectual property law firm, and I had terrible problems in communicating with anybody during the month of August at this law firm because frankly everybody was out of the office. It was impossible.

CADE: Well OK, I think that’s – we are getting right into it here, Laurence (ph) and then Thomas (ph), wait a minute, is Abel (ph) back?

ABEL (ph): Yes. I am back again.

CADE: OK, Abel (ph), can we go to you, because we missed you …

ABEL (ph): Yes, that’s OK. Marilyn. I am not sure (INAUDIBLE) because I don’t have any paperwork with me as I said early on. Is there any statement made on the means of contacting the domain owners, and if not, should we not instead of trying to change the RAA (ph) try and make some sort of recommendation that a procedure is set up, which is deemed to be correct contacting of the owner.

CADE: Let me put that on the table and come back to it. In the past and recommendation about how to notify – I don’t know if the registrar will think that was micromanaging. I think most of them are intent on keep the customers. We can come back to this thing after the questions. Again, that to me Abel (ph) sells into the idea that – and I what is this – different times for someone, choose please supply the required information in the 15 days. Since right now, we are asking indeed that the registrar may be responding in 15 days, unless, they provide documentary proof of the accuracy of the accepted data.

There are parts of the world where it is very difficult to get information copied or notarized or mailed in a timely manner, and I think we need to recognize that, and maybe we can recognize it and see and say that we are unable to try and identify the harm the – the amount of time that is the right time, but that we should make some comment about the process that is followed and that would be in a little kind of note, ‘Your comments.’ Abel (ph), in some way you want to conduct and figure out how.

ABEL (ph): Yes …

CADE: We have Laurence

LAURENCE: Marilyn, is it my turn?

CADE: Yes.

LAURENCE: OK. I am sorry, I really have difficulties to – well, I just would like to say that I understand (ph) Ken’s (ph) argument. I fully understand that but I also believe we have another goal, and there is a huge difference between 15 days to respond and 45 days as it has been proposed. And I am not fully convinced yet the need to extend this period. I am not – Ken (ph) don’t you think the example you have given, how lucky we are in Europe to have two weeks holiday also in the summer for instance …

STUBBS (ph): Four weeks in France.

LAURENCE: Also in France or …

STUBBS (ph): Four weeks in France.

LAURENCE– or for instance, the difficulties for some countries – you referred last time in our last conference call through a letter you sent from Shanghai, which arrived I think three weeks later in the US. Don’t you think these cases are exceptional cases and …

STUBBS (ph): Well I – let me try to be practical from a registrar’s standpoint. Let us suppose that a registrar is unable to reach somebody by standard e-mail. Now he has a couple of choices; first of all he can send out an overnight Federal Express or UPS traceable thing if they are outside the United States. But now the registrar is incurring signifICANNt cost that they can’t necessarily recover. If they use standard mail with request for returned receipt, as I did, in the case of communicating with the law firm in France, it took almost a month to get everything done, because the receipt has to get back to you. Do you assume, that if you do not have a receipt back, that it was not delivered and therefore you would delete the domain or do you just assume, the receipt is only tardy in arriving back?

So I am just trying to arrive at some sort of a practical benchmark, and I am saying, in my opinion, that the original 15 days was a little arbitrary and capricious. The only problem is, we don’t know how arbitrary it might have been, or whether it was arbitrary at all. So it seems to me that we could probably cut through the chase and recommend in our report that additional, a follow-up in this area, be done to determine what an effective time period is, and encourage ICANN (ph), working with the registrars, to develop a time period that takes into consideration some of the concerns the taskforce has. I’m not good at putting what I just said into writing but I know Steve (ph) or one of you is, so …

CADE: Can I do this real quickly and then we’ll conduct (INAUDIBLE) status of the poll, so see if we are in agreement with. You all want to comment before we take (INAUDIBLE) an amendment to see that what Steve suggested as well.

METALITZ (ph): Marilyn, I’d like to comment.

KRISTY (ph): Yes, Steve (ph) and Marilyn, this is Kristy (ph) I have a question once he is finished.

CADE: Yes, we have Steve (ph), we also though have Tony Harris (ph) who’d like to comment.

Steve (ph), can I let him go first?

METALITZ (ph): Absolutely.

CADE: Tony (ph).

KRISTY MCKEE: Yes, I’ll pass right now the discussion has gone past what I had to say.

CADE: OK, Steve (ph).

METALITZ (ph): OK. Let me suggest two things. First, in response to Ken (ph), let me suggest the following language, that we should begin 5-C by saying, “Some members of the taskforce believe 15 days is insufficient to establish material breach in all cases.” That would be the first sentence of C.

CADE: Yes.

METALITZ (ph): And then, it would go on. “ICANN should work with registrars to monitor,” and then adding new language, “and collect more extensive data on,” at the end of the new language, “the specific impact on the 15 days period,” and so forth. So, that would make it clear that some people have their minds made up, that 15 days is not sufficient, but in any case, we think ICANN (ph) should collect better data so that – so this question can be evaluated.

The second point I’d like to make, just before we lose it – I think Abel (ph) raised a very important point, which is, as it stands now, the RAA (ph) in section 3.7.8, just says that the registrar is supposed to take reasonable steps to investigate the claims and accuracy. It doesn’t say what they should do, and certainly this could be a good subject for best practices.

CADE: Yes.

METALITZ (ph): And maybe we ought to mention, encourage the registrars to work with interested parties on developing best practices in this area.

KEN STUBBS: Can I respond real quickly Marilyn. I am not trying to drag this out at all. I think, I agree with almost everything Steve (ph) said except for the first – the very first sentences and that is that minimizes it to some extent when you say that some of the members of the taskforce. I think what I’d be willing to bet is that there is no consensus in the taskforce that 15 days is adequate. And I think that’s a fair description of this than to say that there are some people. You know we have …

METALITZ (ph): Yes, I agree with you.

KEN STUBBS: Situations, where one constituency out of eight, or out of seven, disagrees and we use the same term for some constituencies, so I think it would be better to indicate that, indicate seven. I feel very strongly, that we need to have a best practice set up, we also need to have a definable procedure for making sure that people don’t abuse it, Steve (ph).

CADE: OK, I am going to, I am going to make a proposal. I think, I agree with that there is no consensus in the taskforce about the 15 days. I do think that if I were being asked to extend the 15 days by another ten that on behalf of the BC (ph), I’d be more comfortable with that. We have people be- would not be – able to meet the 15 days, so the same kind of reasons that it’s kind of complicated, to communicate with them where their company is in remote locations, but since we are not proposing a specific extension, what I would propose is, we pick up the modification they (ph) made, there is no consensus.

We are recommending that ICANN (ph) enforce and the registrars enforce the 15 days now. I think we should recommend a time period, like over the next six months ICANN (ph) should work with registrars to correct more extensive information and examples (ph) and then, after further evaluation of any change that is need to be undertaken – is something of that nature, but give them a time frame. Maybe it’s a year, but I was think it might be six months.

TONY HARRIS: Well six months sounds good.

THOMS ROESSLER: That sounds almost perfect. One very little announcement I would like to get in somewhere and that is, that we should not be likely take to account, that we have received a lot of comments during the redemption (ph) period, which also raised concerns about the different date periods.

CADE: That’s right.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Taking into account the comments received on this particular topic that I have pushed our (INAUDIBLE) something like this.

CADE: Yes. Yes, now let me just ask a different question here. I would assume that if a registrar came to ICANN (ph) staff, said I have been – I am a member of registrars who are Latin America and in Africa and it’s clear they are not receiving this data in time to get back to me, and so, I dodged the message, but a number of these incidences are not in the redemption base period. That would – ICANN (ph) would be able to determine that there is a problem there. That the redemption grace period is still there, as a recovery mechanism, even though there may be harm to – even though the site may have gone dark and we may need to think about it being a rapid recovery, if some kind of documentation is done that it was a failure to be notified. We’ve not addressed that, and I believe that would probably fall out of the scope of this taskforce, other than to note that the ICANN (ph) staff should be gathering such data. Right?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: And nobody spoke.

THOMAS ROESSLER: I am thinking about what you said about the registrar having a hard time in reaching his customers in the overseas areas, to put it that way, but isn’t it for the registrar itself, a loophole in the entire set up by saying that – first of all, we are talking about the 15-day period to answer, or to react after you’ve been notified through reasonable ways. But, if the registrar knows it’s going to Africa, a reasonable period to wait for arrival of the letter is three to four weeks. So, basically the registrar itself and, maybe, we could make a remark in that sense that some responsibility to ensure that it’s method of contact it says within reason and the time frame as well.

CADE: Yes …

METALITZ (ph): Marilyn, this is Steve. Can I, can I read what I think is what is been proposed here. First sentence of 5-C, “There is not a consensus on the taskforce, taking into account comments received if 15 days is sufficient to establish material breach in all cases.” And then it will go on, ‘ICANN (ph) should work with registrars to monitor an correct and ICANN (ph) should work with registrars over the next six months to monitor and collect more extensive data on the specific impact, et cetera” …

CADE: Yes.

STEVE METALITZ: Is that what …

CADE: … and, and then you would say, any consideration of a modification 15 day period would then be deferred back to the main center.

STEVE METALITZ: It then, doesn’t matter (ph)?

CADE: There used to be …

STEVE METALITZ: – it needs counseling, within six months.

CADE: That, that would be the standard process; it is just that I can’t suddenly do that. It is the post-intensive (ph) policy that says that 15 days is the period …

METALITZ (ph): That’s correct; I think …

CADE: You said that there may be more documentation …

STUBBS (ph): By the way, I’m fine with what Steve (ph) just said, I think you did a good job of grafting a …

MCKEE: Thank you, Ken (ph). This is Kristy (ph), I was just going to ask you …

STUBBS (ph): I just wanted to try and get this thing cleared up in such away that we don’t keep dragging on and on …

CADE: OK, so, I’m going to feed us along as we have lots to cover. The only thing that I would ask you to do is to see that – the data, the report is provided to the main council to determine what policy action is to be taken, something like that.

STUBBS (ph): The agreement was that the concern I had, when I just spoke up against this was that if, I can start notices in those last 15 days, I can cause real concern – they should, of course, be able to somewhat loosen the enforcement of the compound (ph) policy. I believe – want to stop it (INAUDIBLE) close it: have a new partner- I think it is time, with the wording (ph), you forget this, Marilyn.

CADE: I think that you have the ability to do that.

STUBBS (ph): I’m sorry?

CADE: I think you have the ability to do that, to waive (ph) something, because it is necessary – I think you have the ability to do that.

STUBBS (ph): … we don’t close …

CADE: Right. OK, next – Steve (ph)?

METALITZ (ph): I think that the remaining issue is – assuming we’re done with 5-C. I believe the remaining issue is a fairly straightforward one in 8A (ph), which is the one which deals with this …

CADE: I’m sorry. This has been high-lighted in side SPTN (ph)-6. It’ s been highlighted that I’m on- have you taken that off?

METALITZ (ph): I asked Thomas (ph). He put them in, so I …

THOMAS (ph): I put them in because I was not sure that – wait a moment, I don’t have a PAX (ph) in front of me, but one of you who have a draft, if you could accommodate the consensus policy, because it looked like that to me and it should be marked occasionally – it is more of an editorial command.

If this is going to be a compromise policy, we somehow, have to take it out of the recommendations, make clear waters of this – we will not go into the material part of this.

CADE: I think what is required at this registrars (INAUDIBLE) obligatory signature (ph), and maintain (INAUDIBLE) contact later. I hope that considering that we’re not limited to the time of going (ph) to registration. I believe, that is a consensus agreement of the taskforce. Can I hear your answers now?

KAREN (ph): Yes

THOMAS (ph): Yes

METALITZ (ph): Yes.

CADE.: So, we are not – we’re not dissipating on how or not this should be done. But, we are saying that that’s consensus that 6-A and 6B and Steve (ph), if you don’t mind dividing it that way, as we did the other one? Then, 6-B should be also have information about this (INAUDIBLE). 6-A and 6-B should also be responsible for ensuring that the retailers provide such reminders. I don’t know about the consensus in the taskforce, but I think …

METALITZ (ph): … is there an objection to it, maybe, is the way to …

THOMAS ROESSLER: Let me ask a question, what does responsible mean? Responsible to whom …

STEVE METALITZ: I think that under the contract, it can’t, I mean, the registrar can’t say,” See, I didn’t have to- OK this position in my contract – I thought my visa wasn’t good”

Agency wise (ph); you will be responsible for the acts of your agent, so.

THOMAS ROESSLER: To the extent that (INAUDIBLE) I don’t know the name of the firm, we may have the problems of the contract on you may have to resettle acting as an agent of your discount (ph). In that case, the more appropriate language would be that registrars also responsible for having the agent pay the staff (ph) …

THOMAS (ph): Can you give me an example of a reseller (ph) acting as the agent of a registrant and not as a registrar?

STEVE METALITZ: I don’t have an example here, but I’m pretty sure that in one of the last calls we were told this was one of the possible contract designs (ph) …

MCKEE (ph): It is possible. This is Kristy (ph). We will see messages from, you know, different registrars asking us to work as an agent, so that, we will be going to be responsible for our client and not be responsible for the registry at all – we don’t do any work like that. But, they would like us to work as the reseller rather than as a general reseller for our clients, we don’t do that, but I’m sure that’s what we are talking about. I would think that agent and reseller would want to be included.

STEVE METALITZ: Let (ph) me go back to – the beginning (ph), or did this come out of – I just have to think about the two …

METALITZ (ph): I think that Thomas (ph) is suggesting that we change the word, resellers, to agents, and that will be OK with me.

KRISTY:I agree with that.

CADE: OK. In that case, the agent definitely has a different relationship, but that does let the resellers off the hook.

METALITZ (ph): Well, no, I think in most cases, resellers are their agents of the registrar, so if they’re not, I suppose that …

THOMAS (ph): It’s a correct (ph) story (ph), so …

CADE: – the language says the task force(ph) means registrars could operate(ph) (INAUDIBLE). Steve (ph), how do you feel about that language that says the taskforce says, registrars should also be responsible for ensuring that the resellers and the agent survive the reminders.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE) or agents?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Pardon me, I couldn’t hear that.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: The printer is really affecting my ability to hear.

ABEL: I’m back, but it was just somebody started two printers at the same time right behind me. I’m sorry.

CADE: That’s OK, let’s see if we can hear now. Registrars – excuse me (INAUDIBLE), registrars should also be responsible for assuring – for insuring that their resellers and agents provide such reminders.

CADE: OK, what I’m basically saying is, we’re making this as a recommendation, it may not rise to the level of documentation consensus from the community, because I’m don’t know if we’ve gotten enough comments on it..

: I’m with the first change and about the second one, I’ll really do it later (INAUDIBLE). That way we will be better off.

Pat (ph), that was the lease federal (ph) for their agent.

THOMAS (ph): I don’t, well…

KRISTY McKEE: How about a legal opinion?

STEVE METALITZ: Well. We don’t…

THOMAS (ph): I thought we had an agreement, but I guess Marilyn, you would object to registrars as an office responsible for ensuring that their agents provide such reminders?

CADE: I’m asking the question because it’s been raised in TUCOWS, and I believe that it (ph) weighs (ph) in 2,000 (ph) contacts (ph), and I don’t know that this registrars themselves have agreements that they are – I don’t know what their responsibility is in this area, so I cant expect (ph) more than, I believe they should be responsible. If they are delegating responsibility; I believe they have to delegate responsibility – if they’re delegating lies (ph) they have to delegate responsibility.

METALITZ (ph): OK, well this whole paragraph is shushed (ph). I think we should also say that registrars should also be responsible … .

CADE: OK, I’m happy with that change and then we can, lets go to see when (ph) ICANN (ph), and should also take steps to include information about this on appropriate, oh, never mind, I just wanted you to break that in to 82 beside (ph)

METALITZ (ph): Oh, yes, I can certainly see that.

THOMAS ROESSLER: Marilyn, is it really prudent to do this in APC (ph) fashion (ph)? I think we would certainly confuse some readers about what is consensus policy and what is not.

CADE: The last two points are not consensus policy.

STEVE METALITZ: We are, our –just hope that we format (ph) that very strongly.

THOMAS (ph): OK, can we move on to 8A?

METALITZ (ph): Yes.

THOMAS (ph) (?): I think though, what is left in 8A is that we have two different formulations of the next and the last sentencing (ph), let me put this in context. This is saying that once the registration goes into this hold period or redemption period, and I’m not going to argue about which is which. Standard redemption mechanism should only be applicable, in other words, what would the registrar have to do to get it out of the limbo that it is in, and my suggestion was that there – I think what was really in the earlier draft was provided that an accurate and verified contact information is available, in other words, you get out of limbo by providing accurate, verified contact information, and Thomas’ (ph) suggestion was, the safeguards appropriate for this specific circumstances of (ph) this (ph) should (ph) be (ph) so, and then the last sentence, which I think, there is an agreement on is that the details are under investigation in breached (ph) task(ph) forces (ph). So, I think, that’s where things will – and the reason for my recommendation is I think we should say that in the circumstances in which you should get your domain name back may be the details of the week’s taskforce – this is one step with general.

If I may give a resonic (ph) on my recommendation, on my verdict, as far as I can understand is, from one of the members of the Delete taskforce, they are thinking about redemption mechanisms in very broad trends and should look at what the redemption grace period does. We have in the main language (ph), which has been deleted. Now for the mech., at this point we are basically going back to the registry, there is some period of time during which the registrar may say, OK, it was wrong, please give the domain name back, the domain name back that the registrar has and its logged (ph) in to return to the pool (ph) of freedom (ph) for, and if, and at this point of the places, the registrar would be in a perfect position to further deal with inaccuracy.

One scenario may be like, like the registrant pays or provide some information. The information is not official part in standard but it’s very clear things will be worked out. So the domain name is removed from the danger of really getting lost. I will be getting back to the second step, just one possible way of applying this – this appraisal (ph), for instance, would not be covered by the wording (ph) in the redemption grace period, should only be applicable. If information is provided – I think there may be configurations, which we have not, been doing, in sufficient detail and that’s why I’m forgetting that we really leave the interactions for various states, domain names can be in and out of control about the question, who has control over it at that point?

I would really prefer to the delete (ph) taskforce, which should have the necessary expertise and just say, “Just fax this as a problem?” So this may become local, and it mustn’t become one. Please provide appropriate safeguards. Maybe we could include the old sentence as an example of how these save (ph) cards should, could look like. But I prefer, not to make at this point, judgment how this somewhat complicated matter should be resolved. I don’t think we really know it.

METALITZ (ph): Well, this is Steve. Can I respond to that?

CADE: You can. Should we give other people – hear about this as well?

METALITZ (ph): I’ll be glad to go after anybody else.

CADE: OK. Does anyone have a comment on this?

KEN STUBBS (ph): One thing that I am a little concerned about is, and I wish Bret (ph) is on the call, because he is on the deletions (ph) taskforce. One thing that I …

MARILYN : Who is on the call?

KEN STUBBS: Bret Fauset (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK.

MARILYN: I did join the, the discussion of the deletions task force today and there was a discussion about the fact that the redemption grace period would only apply when accurate and verified contact information is provided. And the registrar on the call can really noted that registrars do take extra steps to insure that you know, some – some unknown source who doesn’t come forward. So maybe the other guy is not who we says he is. I am the real guy – put my name in contact information now. But registrars are taking the steps to make sure they are getting accurate data the second time around – including speaking for forms of verification. And that is being supported by, by the, by being supported by the deletions (ph) taskforce, as far as I can tell. I’m not sure, Thomas (ph), that I understand what the safeguard (ph), is appropriate for specific circumstances for deletion meant here?

THOMAS: It confuses me what the registrar invokes redemption grace based on something I would call preliminary – preliminary evidence. Once again, put the domain name on predeletion (ph) hold – something like that. So basically, the period as the different (ph) scenario. For modification (ph) …

MARILYN: Well, I think, I think I understand that. Let me see if I can get what’s your order (ph). So what you’re basically saying is, someone has been – someone’s name has been deleted in error because they didn’t respond in time or some other, some other confusion occurred and they had to (ph) start (ph). And you’re looking for a way to quickly get them back up and running while a more clear (ph) investigation is undertaken.

THOMAS (ph): Must be even that, once the redemption great period is going, you have a timer running. At the end of that timer, the domain is deleted. It’s finally deleted and available for re-registration. The thing, I think, I have in mind something like, I get a notification concerning a domain name, which is, which has inaccurate, whose data for some reason, I like a lot that stuff (ph). It takes some hundreds great over periods get over the registrars deletes the domain name and at that part of time, I caught the registrar say, “Hey, correct information is in the mail, please make sure you don’t completely lose hold of a domain name.” At that point, the registrar would have to go through redemption grace period without having accurate information. He would, however, probably put the domain name on hold and not return it. To say, it’s possible to prevent it from being lost completely by invoking redemption grace. If on the other hand, redemption grace could only be invoked once registrar has provided verifiable evidence then it could be too late.

STEVE METALITZ: How does it work, Thomas (ph) with money? Can you call; say the check (ph) is in the mail? Put my registration back into operation.

THOMAS (ph): I haven’t tried out so far (ph).

CADE: Yes

STEVE METALITZ: That’s what you’re suggesting here.

CADE: Yes, but see – we probably, hold on a minute – we probably can’t do. There probably are circumstances where a registrar could call and say, “My credit card didn’t work – let me give up a new credit card or I’ll mail you the money.” That probably is in the discussion at the registrant, registrar. I don’t know the answer to that, but I wouldn’t be surprised. There are some days that they are, that’s firm that but they have to do certain things. There are a lot of discussions with them (ph).

THOMAS: Can I, can we try to reach some conclusion on this so that it’s a compromise so that people, and we can move on?

CADE: I do think that the addition of accurate and verifiable contact information is something that is worth saying, and I believe that is being supportive, as far as I can tell from the delete (ph) in taskforce. The thing I didn’t, I had one other question – I didn’t actually understand what the details of this question are under the investigation and the names council (ph) delete (ph) taskforce – just the way it was worded it means, I think is that, the profits that will be followed, in relation to, standard deletions policy – is that what you’re saying?

THOMAS (ph): The thing I was trying to say was that over the issue number two was slightly (ph) discussion (ph), may be if I may, I would like to suggest some possible language – if the functional description of what we are trying to say, may be we could approach say that one such saturations (ph) are deleted after the end of the whole period, standard redemption, make a note of it, should only be applicable, should be applicable period. However, the domain name in question should not be returned to operational status before registrant has submitted reliable contact information. Details of this are under discussion in the deletion (ph) taskforce. I think that’s the primary concern. You say the current registrar must not reconnect with the domain name, unless they really have this information.

CADE (?): OK. That’s one point. I have a question as well, about the fact that, and Steve (ph), I know you didn’t want to discuss an appropriate whole mechanism, for a certain period of time – that is not the appropriate (ph) whole mechanism for a certain period of time – you are saying that the taskforce was not making a recommendation on whether that is a second hold period or that is the standard redemption grace period.

THOMAS (ph): To whom does that question (ph) go?

CADE: Steve (ph).

METALITZ (ph): No, I’m not making a recommendation on that – I don’t I think we are making a recommendation on that. I think the idea was some people were concerned that the – remember we had comments that said that people could refuse the system and grab the name by submitting the claim of false contact data that we responded to. And partly to prevent that and partly ameliorate the problems that some people anticipated there needs to be some type of limbo status – now I don’t know what right label for that is and I don’t really I don’t think from our perspective it makes much difference, but there needs to be some period of time during which your domain name does not resolve but if you provide accurate or verified contact information then it will go back into the system.

CADE: I think – I want to suggest that – if we, in general, the taskforces (ph) agrees, that that would be the standard redemption grace period which ought to be, it seems to me, the standard redemption grace period ought to be a uniform solution which is applicable in a number of settings applying it here rather than devising a new one I believe it’s what the taskforce is in agreement with. Note – let me just try this – the note that the taskforce is not – did not – develop, I do think we ought to say that we didn’t develop a different whole mechanism but would recommend that the uniform that the standard redemption grace period should be applicable because I do think we did have agreement to that, didn’t we – within the taskforce?

THOMAS (ph): I’m sorry Marilyn I think we have really two separate issues – one is do we want to apply redemption grace – I think, I think we have agreement redemption grace period should apply, but I don’t think we have agreement that should apply immediately after the end of 15 days or whatever day period the registrant has for a client (ph). There are, I think, the pact that currently stands have a three step process step – one registrar hands a notification to the registrar – the main man continues to operate so that’s two 15 days, 30 days – whatever is appropriate to in the end – expire. The registrant does not reply. At this point, the domain name is removed from his own file but remains under the registrar’s control – that is what is called an appropriate hold period. How long does this step two takes is open. Step three is the registrar gives up – sends a delete command to the registry and at this point, the domain name enters the redemption grace period.

CADE: OK. I’m not sure and I just want to make sure that everyone else agrees with you that it is a three step process because that is really the question I tried to get it to before – are we saying that this is a three step process? Steve (ph)?

METALITZ (ph): No. I don’t think, I don’t think that was my understanding I think the only one who would be affected by this would be the registrars. I mean it’s a question whether the registrar, as you said, retains control or not that’s the only difference I can see, between hold and redemption grace periods. I guess I would ask the registrars have any objection to simply applying the standard redemption grace.

THOMAS (ph): If I may I’d like to recommend on that.

CADE: You plan on in just a minute, but I just to interject another factor (ph) here. The registrars today do put names on hold whenever they go into UBIC (ph). They may put them on hold for non-payment – there are other reasons why the registrar might either lock a name or put a name on hold. I’m concerned about what we have before we argue this out I want to I want to be sure that everyone on the taskforce, that we know that we have researched enough to say that we have we can make a recommendation or if we need to say the taskforce is not yet in agreement on this particular area and think they have to take further input into account – they have to do further research or if we can recommend an interim solution, remembering that interim solutions cost registrars money to implement.

But right now we’ve gotten to that size, and we are around to eight and we were back in discussion we were in in five. Thomas (ph) is proposing a three-step process. We would have to say that if we go with the three-step process that we did not define what an appropriate hold mechanism is, nor what a certain amount of time is. OK?

THOMAS: Yes

CADE: I know it is understood I just want to I want to make sure everybody is with it somewhere. So we hear from other people on the taskforce to make sure we have clarity about what the discussion is and then Thomas (ph) – you want to back and see those two (ph)?

STUBBS (ph): Yes. This is, this is Ken Stubbs (ph) – can I respond to your inquiry there?

CADE: Yes

STUBBS (ph): Yes – with respect to the registrar I can only speak for myself at this point in time, but I would think that we’d be inclined to go along with Steven’s capitalization of the situation. I don’t think that necessarily a three-part process is necessary.

CADE: But, but so …

STUBBS (ph): When I have to – we have to get the information and the feedback you know.

CADE: But, but, but by doing that you did just agree to the 15 days and then going immediately to the redemption grace.

STUBBS (ph): Well then I if that was the case, then I just, I misunderstood what Steve (ph) had said then – just forget everything I just said.

KEN STUBBS: OK. I am sorry you know.

CADE: That is why I said this isn’t clear in all cases

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I had to get off the conference for just a second, unfortunately. I got a hold of Ram Mohan (ph) who has evidently torn a muscle in his lower back and is in agony so he’ll not be with us today so I apologize.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: No missing surgery.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I’m sorry – I should have just shut up. But I was …

CADE: No. No. Just keep going. OK. Anyone else?

LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN: I have to leave the conference meeting (ph) now Marilyn, so …

CADE: That is…

STEVE METALITZ: Good second part so, OK. Bye.

STEVE METALITZ: Marilyn I think – Hello?

CADE: Hello.

METALITZ (ph): Marilyn? This is Steve – am I in the queue or …?

CADE: Yes – go ahead.

METALITZ (ph): I think Thomas (ph) had suggested a sentence to go in here that may not totally resolve this, but may at least allow us to move on and let me see if I got it right. You suggested that the sentence that begins when such registrations are deleted should end should it should end standard redemption mechanism should be applicable period. New sentence – however the domain name should be not be returned to operational status until accurate and verified contact information is available. First of all, I got that right. Second – again I don’t think that totally resolves this issue but I think it gets across the point that I want to make sure it was gotten across. And again, it leaves the details to the deletes (ph) taskforce.

THOMAS (ph): So something’s right. And …

CADE: When Thomas (ph) heard – that still does not – well, I do think that if if there is a view that a three step process is needed that would need to take a – I am not saying that we need to go back now – but that would need to back to 5-C (ph) and anything (ph) of that nature, would I think, be then undertaken by certain work under the selection of the name tags (ph).

THOMAS (ph): Marilyn, this is a proposed change eight – the complete of eight – because the proposed change through – through the agreement which we recommend and which should be considered in the future – this is written anyway. This is not company policy anymore so we really providing input to some future policy making at this point.

CADE: Steve, (ph). Are you – are you OK with that? And the drafting of it?

METALITZ (ph): Yes. With what I just read? Yes.

CADE: Check (ph) about the one Thomas (ph) just said. Because, right now, Thomas (ph), eight says the following changes to the agreement are recommended – A has in it, that there’s just been an appropriate hold mechanism for a certain period and B, what Steve (ph) just read to me, makes Lisa (ph) believe that the appropriate hold mechanism is viewed as being the standard redemption mechanism – not in second stage hold mechanism.

THOMAS (ph): What Steve (ph) just brought (ph) was as far as I had, forty (ph) pacts to work it worked the safeguards to be put in place with respect to redemption grace period and just to make sure that we really understand what we are talking about in his for ten minutes ago – Steve said he doesn’t see any difference to anyone except the registrar to putting (ph) the domain name on hold and to invoking (ph) for the redemption period there is a difference – redemption grace period is a fixed amount of time and I suppose we would catch up our hats (ph) part (ph) if we suggest different kinds of redemption grace period.

A hold period prior to deletion could be adopted (ph) to things like the remaining time of registration – things like that. So there is a whole lot more flexibility if you do it if you put the domain name on hold before the delete command is issued – so there is a measurable difference, but maybe what would be more appropriate actually to move eight a power in domain and say OK, this needs further discussion too.

STEVE: Well – the I mean – its actually the thought that came into the call -one thing that we all seem to agree on was that if you don’t answer the inquiry your name shouldn’t just be cancelled and I guess that’s what you are saying that it should be if we move this in. What I thought it what Marilyn was suggesting is that may be if this goes through the standard redemption grace period, then there is no need to change the registrar of presentation agreement which is that. Is that what you were saying Marilyn? Because I think that’s a good point.

CADE: Two things guys. I’m going to be sure that everybody understands you know, its very difficult, and we do the best we can, but we sometimes find out that we are speaking past (ph) each other. So, what I’m hearing is some people on the taskforce (ph), think that there needs to be a second hold period, during which the registrar can hold – but put the name on hold that he has not issued the deletion command. Redemption grace takes place after a deletion command is issued and the name is on hold at the registry level, not at the registrar level, and Thomas (ph) you are recommending a hold of a standard period at the registrar level.

THOMAS (ph): I have a standard period, but I’m not – a standard period at this point, not recommending anything like ten days, but something depending on the standardized way, on the circumstances like the remaining period of the registration, which has ...

CADE: The remaining period of registration should be nine months.

THOMAS (ph): Yes.

CADE: I – it’s not really; I don’t think there’s instances (ph) within the taskforce on leaving a name on hold at the registrar for a period of time like that.

THOMAS (ph): Do we often think (ph), why we don’t have a consensus policy (ph) on this particular item?

CADE: Steve (ph), is it possible to divide a …

METALITZ (ph) (?): Well, wait a minute, I’m not sure what, what is possible to divide a…

CADE: I say, because we do have a consensus about redemption rate.

THOMAS (ph): OK, may be if I can forget something we should, then we should say, that first week of month (ph) that a redemption grace period, when implemented, should apply to, the domain names that we did cancelled (ph) due to majority (ph) inquiry (ph) et cetera. Then we would have a second part, which says that a sanction other than cancellation should be considered, once again subjective to the redemption grace period.

CADE: … we have recommended in a five series (ph) a work program that would come up at this stage that would be necessary to determine the needs and the time for an extension to the 15 days.

THOMAS (ph) (?): Well, so, that’s the time during which the domain name continues to operate and revolve (ph).

CADE: I think may be the way that to, well, I guess, I would suggest that we already (ph) divide this. A1 would be that we all agree that it should be subject to redemption grace period with the caveat that the redemption mechanism is provisioned (ph) with accurate and verified contact information. The second point is, we would want to say that one member of the cast also thinks there ought to be prior to the redemption grace period, a period of registrar level hold, extending as long as the registration, the suspension (ph) period of registration that, I don’t know that anybody else has stepped up to that.

THOMAS (ph) (?): Just, after that, I think most of the registrar comments we have received, actually suggest some kind of a hope, instead of a consolation to these, instead of immediately issuing what we need to have, I think, actually I got that, got recommendation to make it the best of the registration period. It’s not anything, I can risk (ph) in, just say it is something, it could be. It is really something we have to look at in the future.

CADE: And let me reinforce and support that the comments we did receive, we did receive comments about the need for a hold (ph) period before it goes to the reef (ph). I’m just trying to picture out, so if we receive comments of that nature. I’m just trying to figure out how we consolidate. Why do we have consensus for, why do we have here, that still we receive some comments, some members of the taskforce say it’s not consensus on whether there needs to be a three tier approach. We did receive comments that recommended to us that the registrar has been able to put the name on hold rather than deleting it while they tried to reach the registrar.

KEN STUBBS: My personal feeling is that we should try to make it as easy as possible from the registrar’s stand point, and that of two-step process, would be a better process rather than going to a three-step where we have, putting the registration on hold at the end of 15 days and then what? How we define hold? Does that mean that we make the domain go dark but don’t delete the domain so then that goes right back to what we just discussed before and that issue taking somebody down at the end of 15 days, and that may not be practical.

So, I would rather see a two-step process where it goes, it goes to a delete which puts it in the redemption grace period and if it’s not resolved at that time then it goes off entirely. But you are asking registrars to write code, and more importantly, you are asking each registrar to decide what constitutes due process for deleting a domain, and I’m just thinking that, that’s going to – that’s really not a good way of dealing with it because some registrars may be more discriminatory than other registrars and – it’s just a …

CADE: OK. We did, let me see if I can …

KEN STUBBS: That’s all I’m saying.

CADE: Yes. We did. We did receive comments about the option of putting things on hold, and why that was an important thing to have a control for the registrars. I – I think, we’ve heard – we probably need to go back and look at those comments, that it definitely is not one member of the taskforce, but, the thing I’m trying to see that, if we can, is, what is not consensus, is how to deal with an interim (ph) staff (ph) such as an appropriate hold mechanism at the registrar level for a defined period of time. That would prevent (ph) the (ph) rest (ph) from (ph), that’s not a fully agreed to process. Of course we did receive comments. But, we do, I believe we have consensus on standard redemption.

STEVE: Well then, maybe we should say that should be A1 in the redemption grace period, and A 2 would be say that there is not consensus on the whole period but it should be put there for…

CADE: OK.

MCKEE (ph): Or maybe – this is Kristy (ph). We could say, I think after listening to everybody, my opinion is going to change. I think we really need to focus on elongating the15 day period, because of what things (ph) I had not even thought about that. I was thinking of, if you can get on hold but I just realized how much code (ph) they have to write to do this. It’s going to be expensive and for a interim mechanism. I agree with what Ken (ph) has to say, so maybe our focus is to try to increase the amount of time, and in the event that they don’t think that’s reasonable then our secondary recommendation is to have a hold period at the registrar level. OK?

THOMAS (ph): If I may weigh in on that, I think what we have here is a lot of registrar commands, which will command (ph) that whole period. And, the implementation file with our P (ph) at least. It’s the amount putting the domain into a registrar hold status. This is a standard, an existing status, which removes the domain name from the old (ph) file, so that nothing goes dark. I would really, well one of the reasons we have been hearing for putting the main registrar on hold, is, we have had the possible chances to hijack the domain names through (ph) a security complaint (ph), and that in fact (ph) is always there when you have a very short period of time, until the main names is up for new registrations. That is why we even see (ph) some comments that we are talking about both “indefinite,” and for hold period.

I know, I really suggest that we settle for a language (ph) fee (ph), suggestions we have from some, implying the redemption grace period, one for the domain name is deleted. We have received command and putting in an additional hold period before the domain name is deleted. These comments were most of the time from registrars at different opportunities including in Shanghai, and how, and for, how this should be implemented? If it should be implemented, and for what time should we stop it (ph) for separate work pursuit.

KEN STUBBS: The only thing, I would say is, the comments you get from the registrars is for probably predicated on the assumption that we were keeping a 15 day delayed period, and they were trying to cover themselves for the situations we discussed earlier.

CADE: OK.

THOMAS (ph): Actually some commands combined for 30 to 45, delete period, with the whole recommendation …

CADE: Guys, this is not resolvable on this call, I think what is resolvable is re- formatting what Steve (ph) has proposed from Thomas’ (ph) language (ph), we can’t revisit as, in this output, recommend in our final report, cannot revisit as a 15 day, it seems to me that we do want to know, that one or that we could recommend that, and it’s probably this output (ph) that will have to do this next step of work. We should recommend that we undertake that, return to me, based on information from the ICANN (ph) staff, and other inputs whether it is better to extend the 15 day period or to create a separate hold period. We received comments on those.

MCKEE (ph). Thank you Marilyn. I appreciate that.

CADE: OK.

THOMAS: What editorial safeguards do you, with the redemption grace periods, please put in something along the lines of when implemented because we already got hit with a command – a hit with a comment that we are incompetent because our RTC (ph) doesn’t exist as yet.

Should’ve have watched that.

CADE: OK.

THOMAS (ph): Next?

CADE: B, eight B (ph).

STEVE: I think these are the only issues that, I mean, I think the issues that have been flagged, I think we’ve gone through.

CADE: OK?

STEVE: But obviously, you people have concerns about eight B (ph) or anything in nine (ph).

CADE: I had a suggestion about you having a nine (ph), and actually I had a question (ph) about eight B (ph). It somewhere sees that you need to say, you say something, when you say the specifics of required validation remain to be determined, you should note whether it is the recommendation of this taskforce to undertake that work or whether we recommend that someone else does. So, you see what I mean?

STEVE: I see what you mean, but I, I don’t know how to answer that question because I guess I’m not sure who were – and this is a bigger question about, what’s our future work? What’s going to be taken over by somebody else? What happens when the names council disappears and turns into something else? I just don’t know the answer to that question.

CADE: OK. The taskforces are not necessarily – the taskforces are not disappearing and they are morphing (ph) into something else, and we don’t actually know the exact date, at which we will morph (ph). There will be no staff support for at least six months; and so, one of the discussions at the names council level is the fact that we will continue to be reliant on volunteers for some period of time. What Ruth (ph) is expecting this taskforce to do, is to make a recommendation, about what work needs to be done, and whether this taskforce or some variation of it, will continue to do some hard selling. There are other taskforces but, the hope is that they will be censored (ph), but that the specific required delegation (ph) remains to be determined, we still need to say – I mean …

STEVE: I think we should say, after further work by this taskforce or another appropriate body.

CADE: Good, good, good, good, good, good, good, and the same thing, I think, was what I was looking for, on nine (ph) in your heading.

STEVE: OK, we could say the same thing there, I guess, it’s fine we have to change the for a meaningful discussion, to this taskforce or another appropriate body.

CADE: Right. OK? Concerns (ph) and sensibility (ph)? Karen (ph), are you still with us?

KAREN (ph): I am still with …

MARILYN CADE: Bulk access (ph) …

KAREN (ph): Bulk access (ph), I’m sorry, yes, bulk access (ph).

CADE: OK.

KAREN (ph): And then what I’m going to do I will improve searchability, and then I will run for a plane (ph). So, I will be doing various things while we are doing this, so I can make my plane.

CADE: OK I just called through the e-mail discussion that’s being going over the last few days, and I find three issues which are opt (ph) in, versus opt (ph) out and the definitions that relate to each of those terms. The ineligibility for someone who has previously breached our (ph) access (ph), and then the tension between national laws versus the enforcement at the RAA (ph). Are there any other issues that people want to talk about?

If we could just then, if we could just talk about opt (ph) in versus “opt (ph) out.” There was some discussion that – and I agree that there has been in the feedback, both on the survey and I think in the community feedback that people prefer opt (ph) in – the reason that we included opt (ph) out in this draft and the previous draft was kind of our thought that that peoples reaction to opt (ph) in was probably a visceral reaction to the fact that opt (ph) out has not really been informative or required by registrars.

So the question for us at this point is, do we stick to our opt (ph) out and recommendation with a, you know a recommendation for ICANN (ph) to monitor it as it – it’s implemented as a required as opposed to an optional structure or do we change our recommendation to “opt (ph) in?”

KAREN (ph): And this is restricted to bulk access (ph)?

CADE: Correct.

KAREN (ph): And that is …

CADE: Bulk access (ph) for marketing purposes.

KAREN (ph): Yes.

CADE: I think we are going to be very clear all the way through on this, that we are discussing only – and let me just take you back to what that means for a registrar. That means that a registrant would be given a pop-up by the registrar and asked what action they want to take. So, the registrar would have to take action, and the registrant will have to respond.

KAREN (ph): Is it for opt (ph) in or for opt (ph) out, Marilyn?

CADE: Well, for either one, right? I think that the registrar will have to cross (ph) the – but now it says May. Right?

KAREN (ph): Yes.

CADE: I don’t know how many registrars have those pop-up windows, but are already in place, and, at the point of registration were they are asking the registrar “Do you want to opt (ph) in or “opt (ph) out?” It is something to note that we recognize, and I’m not saying we don’t do it, guys, it’s just we recognize this is may need additional code, and therefore it may take time to implement it.

THOMAS (ph): And for the recommendation, anyway?

STEVE: Well, it is also contingent in the sense because I think if our main recommendation about marketing using documents (ph) then this becomes kind of moot (ph) point.

CADE: That’s correct.

ABEL (ph): That’s point B.

MCKEE (ph): Yes, this is Kristy (ph). I’m very vocal about this subject – I think I just want to know that everyone understands that, if we choose an opt (ph) out mechanism, what we are doing is saying that, yes, all registrars will automatically be included in book access (ph) for marketing, unless they should choose to respond and to an opt (ph) out opportunity, and I just don’t think that, that is a workable solution. I think that this morning I got a phone call from Disney again, giving me another opportunity to opt (ph) out for the seventh time in 14 days, of receiving automated phone calls from them. And this was a big problem with this, at least in the United States of America.

The opting out is that you get to opt (ph) out every time you’re contacted. So I don’t see that works very well. I do think that if you give someone the opportunity to go and say that they would like to receive something, they are going to feel a lot better about you as a person or you as a company, because you are not just automatically including them in this big group of people. And the Internet is one place we may be able to control this because when they look at how much it costs to send e-mail, especially unsolicited e-mails, or if people opt (ph) out then it’s not unsolicited is it? It causes problems for us because it’s more expensive, we have less bandwidth to surf with, because there’s all this ECE flying around, except it’s not ECE any more; and that’s not OK with me either. So I just want to know that everybody understands what we are recommending, when we recommend, opt (ph) out versus opt (ph) in.

CADE: And again, it’s code either way, which I think it is something we need to understand. You don’t necessarily changing the demand on the registrar.

KRISTY: Right. We are not changing the demand on the registrar, and you know, with the code that you would write for opt (ph) in, you would have, first off, you would have someone who has logged into the database. So they have got their username and password. We just acknowledge that they have permission to modify this registration. So, and now we can timestamp that. So we know who from what IP address said that they wanted to make changes, and then they did at this exact moment in time, choose to opt (ph) in to this and submit. And we have proof now that they really wanted to be included. And we also need to, after opt (ph) in, do provide an opt (ph) out mechanism for those people who have opted in that might decide that why they made a mistake.

CADE: Oh! That’s right, that’s right. That’s important.

KRISTY): So I cannot rule out opt (ph) out completely.

FRAN COLEMAN: You know this is, sorry, this is Fran Coleman (ph) from GNR (ph), and I’m new to this. So you must forgive my question, but are we saying that the default is opt (ph) out.

KRISTY: Right now, it says the default is opt (ph) out.

THOMAS: Pardon. I’m sorry. Right now it says that registrars may, I repeat, may, provide a opt (ph) out opportunity. In fact, some registrars don’t even pull out that because of, for example I asked them. They don’t provide opt (ph) out because they say they come …

STEVE: They deal with this problem by just not giving anybody bulk … .

CADE (?): Eventually (ph) good for it.

THOMAS: OK. So that’s a, that is a more radical approach, of course.

KAREN (ph): Frank (ph), so what we have been suggesting is that we increase the – or we sort of heighten the requirement, the provision (ph) by saying, they’re required to add a minimum, implement not opt (ph) out policy. Now, if they have to or would like to implement opt (ph) in, then that is their prerogative that no longer have the option of not providing opt (ph) out at the …

KRISTY: OK. Karen (ph), I like that because then that provides the registrars. Once we get the transfers working , then the response (ph) can start transferring all of these places and they can modify their e-mail addresses so that they start proceeding this unforseen (ph) e-mail except and we can all up that anymore. I don’t know what to call it that is junk mail? Is that fair?

FRAN COLEMAN: That’s the show (ph) that we had last week, right.

CADE: Sorry.

CONNORS (ph): That is for show (ph), we changed, may (ph) to show (ph) last week. The next question, and this is just, and that is really my last question on this pointer (ph) thing, as, since the EU directive moves most member states from opt (ph) out to opt (ph) in, soon when it takes effect. Is our recommendation now, a short term recommendation?

KAREN: Well. I think again we have the, what we’re doing is recommending a minimum requirement both in the actual text it says – let me just read it, “Incorporating such a minimum requirement should not preclude (ph) any one registrar from implementing a more stringent opt (ph)- in policy,” and then there is a parenthetical that says, “in particular such a policy is required by national laws determined to be applicable to a ICANN (ph) contracting party.

CONNORS (ph) (?): So, we are comfortable; when we may soon be living in a world where the overwhelming requirement, I mean, there are 350 million people in Europe and, say, 300 commuters, and the predominant requirement will be opt (ph) in. Are we setting ourselves up for serious revisiting of this issue in the near time?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I’m sorry. Guys, I’m back. I apologize for that, I got myself off.

KAREN: Frank (ph), I think we are, if we choose opt (ph) out because we’ll have to adjust for Europe.

THOMAS (ph): How’s that? We leave registrars with an option to take opt (ph) in. So if they have a national law obligation to do opt (ph) in, they’ll have, they can do it. That’s one, there are two changes into the modifications Karen (ph) is suggesting. One, registrars shall provide some kind of protection mechanism for marketing uses to the extent these users are continued to permit, despite our earlier recommendation. Something has to be done, at least opt (ph) out. Second, they are no longer prohibited from introducing opt (ph) in.

KAREN: OK. Thomas (ph), what you are saying is that if we provide the opportunity for them to use opt (ph) in our policy, obviously then that just works with the EU directive.

CADE: OK. Yes, I don’t know how I missed that, but thank you.

THOMAS (ph): Yes, at least that is how I understand what Karen (ph) is proposing. Of course, I may be wrong.

KAREN (ph): No, that’s exactly what, I mean …

FRAN COLEMAN: But it just seems to me that the commonsense of the situation and I, you said term too loosely, probably, you said that when most people and most people, when most registrations are required by law to be opt (ph) in, which will be down there within a year, I think, does it make sense that we still, a year from now, be recommending opt (ph) in as a default? Which takes me back to my first question, which I agree with Thomas (ph) that by heightening May (ph) to Shaw (ph) we require registrars to do either opt (ph) in or out, they can do nothing. But I am just saying, and I’m comfortable with that for the short term, but in the longer term, the default would be the minority position. And I wonder if that’s why, and I wonder if we should therefore, it may be the process – is there some way to signal that our recommendation is for now, to be revisited, you know later. Or is that implicit in the process?

THOMAS (ph): I think that this entire recommendation is well, marked as something to be done. Well. OK. Let me put it differently. We’ve two primary recommendations to go by this chapter (ph). Recommendation one, and if that is the thing we should be advancing, is there shall be barred (ph) efforts for marketing clear bills (ph), or as it is implemented and kind of waiting for 3363 back (ph) (INAUDIBLE) shall not be used for marketing activities.

COLEMAN: Yes.

THOMAS (ph): That’s recommendation one. If that is adopted, almost everything else (ph) which remains is, I think, 3365, the thing about passing on to data to third parties which would still be changed from May (ph) to Shaw (ph).

COLEMAN: Yes.

THOMAS (ph): That’s the only one, which may remain in case of primary recommendations are accepted. For example, what we are talking about now is if a recommendation against any kind of marketing is, at this point, not recommended, then at least the following things should be done and that is remove, extend some of the marketing activities language again, I think, and in particular opt (ph) our. I’m sorry. A probability for opt (ph) in is added in and at least and opt (ph) out marketing provided. That is plan B, so it is something to be done, instead of a primary recommendation.

And we are recommending any way that the existing of the back, of the marketing provisions should be revisited in the future. The other thing (ph) that should be revisited really is that if it is to be retained as the motion (ph) of legitimate users to be explored in more detail, I think that makes it pretty clear that this is an interim solution designed only for a case that I will remain comfortable or I can bolt for whatever reason, thinks that marketing user data fact should be preserved.

COLEMAN: Thank you.

THOMAS (ph): I hope that was accurate, OK (ph)?

COLEMAN: Yes.

CADE: OK. So where are we on that?

MCKEE (ph): This is Kristy (ph). I’m very happy.

KAREN: OK. You know what, I am going to leave the language as it is, as it has been circulated, and obviously I’ll circulate it to them; so that people can take a final read of it. Then the next question is something that Steve (ph) and Thomas (ph) were discussing. Let me just find it. It is the, I think, Thomas (ph), you may have resolved this already by, you know, what your, hold on …

THOMAS (ph): I think I told them – It is this language, that to the extent that implementation of the RAA (ph) is provisional. My executive party would be incompatible with national laws that are determined to be applicable to such parties. There cannot be an expectation that factual (ph) provisions will be in force; necessary reasonable exceptions should be made in enforcing the RAA five ex (ph) provisions. And I think that Steve (ph) had an objection on it. Steve (ph), if I may ask – could you maybe elaborate – what entirely (ph) is the object of your objection?

METALITZ (ph): I just don’t think we need to make a sweeping pronouncement of that – any problem that might arise, any conflict that might arise between the who-is provision and the national laws. There is a lot of different national laws. There is a lot of who-is provisions. I think it is perfectly adequate for us to say that national laws allow implications about what information the party can or can’t provide, and leave it that.

THOMAS (ph): So you would not be satisfied by a restriction of deadline (ph) which just in time, which –

I’m sorry. Let me restart the sentence.

So you are not, would not be satisfied with a restriction of a proposed language to be propound until some kind of a expedite (ph) state exit (ph) provision is, I mean, is achieved.

METALITZ (ph): I’m not sure what that means.

THOMAS (ph): It means that we are suggesting to do further research with national laws in mind, and which is due to be actually comfortable with them and all that.

METALITZ (ph): Yes, we’ve said that. It is imperative that any ICANN (ph) policy formulated with respect to (INAUDIBLE) take into account any national laws, which are determined to be applicable.

THOMAS (ph): Yes. But we …

METALITZ (ph): Yes, I said that.

THOMAS (ph): But we are not in this round of changers reaching that goal. Right?

METALITZ (ph): No, no we are not. Because we are not trying to make judgments about what the national laws provide or what, in fact, they would have. We are just wagging that this is an issue that has to be taken into account which I think, is the right way to proceed rather than attempting to quantificate (ph) on matters that we really don’t have the confidence to quantificate (ph) on.

THOMAS (ph): I don’t want to quantificate (ph) on this; however, if we are in agreement that the current policy may create problems for some registrars and if we are ready to recommend that the policy should change with that kind of problem in mind or should be investigated that way. And I think it would be properly appropriate that we also say that until such investigation is being done, there is not a finally (ph) that the current, it may not be possible to fully unfold the present language.

So this would be a change, restricting it in time, so to speak.

CADE (?): And the timeframe that we would be accepting to undertake that investigation, I think is important to sell out (ph).

THOMAS (ph): It is important to what, I’m sorry?

CADE (?): To quantify it. Make it clear that if there is going to be an investigation, Thomas (ph), then we need to specify a time frame.

STEVE: You know, we even say back in the summary of this that the changes that are recommended should be drafted with an eye toward enforceability and respect for applicable laws and reasonable enforcement of the new rules be undertaken. That, you know …

THOMAS: Yes.

STEVE: What else do we need to say here? We are saying this is, the national laws are factors that you need to take into account in enforcement and in drawing up the policy itself. Thomas (ph), I am not sure what you are trying – exactly what you are trying to prove by committing – trying to commit ICANN (ph), in advance, to have all these conflicts might be resolved. But I just don’t want to think it is wise to stake out that position, when we don’t even know concretely what the conflicts will be.

CADE: In the further “Work to be done” section, I want to lay down the prescription that workshop, and I do think that in a workshop we can address some of this in more detail, that we are trying to devise a policy recommendation. Do we, if we have that comment, acknowledged up there, do we really need it here? Because we have captured that – I don’t think there is any disagreement on the part of the taskforce (ph) that we need to capture that concept.

KAREN: I’m happy taking that bracketed language out, because there is a – there is a recognition that, you know, national laws are sometimes in conflict with that type of provisions, and that we are looking further at it, we are investigating it further.

THOMAS (ph): OK. I think, looking at the, at the watch – and we are not interested in playing any games here – I trust that we resolve that language, but let’s keep in mind, that – well, OK. If Karen (ph), do we suggest anywhere that the recommendations we are making now, should be vigorously, or something like that, enforced? I don’t think so. Right?

KAREN (ph): No. OK. I think it ….

KAREN (ph): I think …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Let’s delete it …

KAREN (ph): I think, I think …

STEVE: Vigorous enforcement was changed as your request, Thomas (ph), to reinforce it.

KAREN (ph): That is right.

THOMAS (ph): Yes, it was future policy. I will forthright …

STEVE: We say nothing. We say nothing about enforcement of current policy – I don’t believe.

THOMAS (ph): OK. So let us leave it with that, and just let us keep in mind that we don’t make any change if we, which would make a pronouncement that would take flexibility away, and not enforcing things if necessary.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK.

CADE: OK. And then the last issue that I felt was, Thomas (ph) is raising, whether people who both, who breach those access agreements should be then deemed ineligible for future access. Since I don’t think any of us have really thought about this issue, or I don’t think we have gotten any feedback from the community on this, I think it should be, it is a good point on, and I think it should be added to our list of medium to moderate recommendations.

MARILYN CADE: What’s the present situation?

THOMAS (ph): It was actually one of the complaints we got during out telephone conference (INAUDIBLE) that we were told under current provisions all we can do when people (INAUDIBLE) is to cancel the account (ph) agreements and they give us another 10,000 (ph) bucks (ph) and they continue with their abuse (ph), and that’s not …

MARILYN CADE: Yes.

THOMAS (ph): (INAUDIBLE)

MARILYN CADE: Can we – can we raise it as something we have received but did not, did not work on because we don’t – we did not have time to thoroughly examine it?

MCKEE (ph): Hi, this is Kristy (ph). I would agree with that. I’d like to see this as a further work item because I think I would really like for people to, you know, treat it like the wild West and just not let them do it again, but I think we have to think about it pretty hard …

THOMAS: Yes.

MCKEE (ph): … because businesses change, ownership – it could just have been one employee at that business. There’s so many circumstances that really further discussion.

THOMAS: OK.

KAREN: Agreed.

KAREN: OK, anyone else? Anything else? All right. Well, I will make some changes to the current draft and then send this out again.

MARILYN: OK, are we ready to go, and – I know we’re running out of time, but I wanted to know – Kristy (ph) can you still spend some time with us?

MCKEE (ph): Yes, I can.

MARILYN CADE: When we go to Kristy’s document

MARILYN CADE:

I’m going to ask (INAUDIBLE). I am crawling through my closet packing but I will pay attention.

MCKEE (ph): OK. This is the document where we are not making consensus stated policy recommendations. OK? All we’re trying to do here is to uncover everything important about who is searchability that we’ve uncovered and include it, and this is a major task. So I would just really love for people to add – add two and add two and add two as they can and as they think of things, because at the end of this document, there is a section where we can simply list things that we think should be added.

And I’ve made a couple of changes to this document since it was sent out, and I wanted to start with question and that someone can answer here. On page two and three I have the relevant provisions of the RAA (ph). I wondered if I couldn’t move those into an appendix?

THOMAS (ph) (?): Why?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Good idea.

MCKEE (ph): OK, I’ll go ahead and move those into an appendix so that it’s a six page document instead of an eight page document, and also I just didn’t like the placement of that. So, I started with our, you know, agreement upon consensus thing about the note, so we have actual consensus on the taskforce survey examined through improved kinds of improved searchability, centralized public access, the use of data (ph) different than the domain name, (INAUDIBLE) and the provision of more advanced database query capabilities. And, so I just kind of kept that as it was, and then I added a big long note to tell people we’re not talking about consensus policy, we’re not talking recommendations, we’re talking about suggestions and recommendations for further work.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Right.

MCKEE (ph): All right, and then we go through the RAA (ph) which is going to be moving to an appendix, and then I have another statement. I just keep on repeating this in the document, that we are not recommending changes to the RAA (ph), so that nobody gets upset, and then what I’ve done is I’ve gone to the RAA (ph) and taking the relevant provisions and given them each a header and a little summary and some bullet points, and seeing as how all the summaries are not quite finished, I’m just trying to set up something that could easily be made into a PowerPoint presentation, that is clear and easy to read, and that addresses our concerns, and so I just kind of walked through it from the beginning to the end. You know, starting with point 31 and finishing with the 3 point and three five.

And if anyone has concerns with anything written here, I would hope that they would just comment on them and move forward. With regard to 3.31, I reorganized the bullet points, so there is much better flow now. Before the bullet points kind of made it confusing because of the way that they were flowed. So I have now – we do not suggest all elements be made into query keys, followed by, our survey respondents indicated they would like to use the following elements of query keys, followed by, we do suggest registrants and those with Nick (ph) handles should be permitted to search their own information only, followed by, a consideration should be given to those without Nick (ph) handles who are not registrants, and then a comment that there’s research needed in this area. I need some help with this statement, because consideration should be given to those with Nick (ph) handles who are not registrants, but I’m not really sure how to state that we really need to continue research in that area, so I just have a phrase there.

STEVE: Could you – Kristy (ph), is this an appropriate point to ask questions?

MCKEE (ph): Sure. Any time.

STEVE: I think this is newline (ph) release because I don’t remember seeing it yesterday. What – you sound as though you’re suggesting that the ability to search on other data elements besides domain name should be restricted to – at this point to people who are registrants or have a Nick (ph) handles.

MCKEE (ph): Yes. We were able to achieve consensus on that statement in our working group …

STEVE: OK, well that’s totally contrary to what the survey found, as you know. Because everybody – many of the groups in the survey thought that they would like to have that capability, and it wasn’t just registrants or voter (ph) nicknames (ph).

MCKEE (ph): Right, which is why we include the consideration should be given to those without Nic (ph) handles. There’s so much – so many concerns here, and we don’t want to give the impression that we’re trying to …

STEVE: Well, there’s two other factors to take into account. One is the opinion of the ICANN (ph) general counsel, that this is already required as part of the PORT 43 (ph) who is searchability today, right now. It’s not enforced, but that’s the opinion that they gave back in 2000. Second, I do not think there’s a consensus on this taskforce that allowing people to search by elements other than domain name is a significant privacy issue. There are privacy issues throughout this area, but I don’t think that searchability dramatically – you know, the ability to search and find out, for example, which domain names all share the primary user or IP address. I’m not sure I see how that increases …

THOMAS (ph): You may wish to ask (INAUDIBLE). They have a huge conflict about (INAUDIBLE). There is certainly …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I heard that presentation, and I didn’t hear anything that really addressed that question …

MARILYN CADE: Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys. I want to …

THOMAS (ph): It wasn’t convinced (ph). The only thing I wanted to say is in that area there are some exposed (ph) traps hidden I think and we should be pretty careful about making any recommendations at this point. I think we should focus to catch up to identify issues which have been raised anywhere (INAUDIBLE). Possible benefits as they are perceived by the beneficiaries. I think that is the best thing we can do and we shouldn’t get into any struggle from should be recommend this or is that completely premature?

MARILYN CADE: Can we make a distinction here as well between Steve (ph), what is – what we are able to do today, and then whether we’re making a recommendation of a future change. OK? So, I think what you’re trying to lay out, Kristy (ph), is that we, you know, the survey respondents did provide certain data. We’ve received other comments, they’re not just restricted to the survey responses, but what we’re trying to do is lay out further work, so I – I don’t think we are changing anything – as I understand it, we’re not changing what people can do today. You’ll laying out what certain work would be and what needs to be examined.

STEVE: I understand that and I have no problem if this is put forward as this is what some people commented or what some people think, but there are a lot of statements in here that I don’t think reflect the consensus of the taskforce, and I’ll have to go through all of them.

MCKEE (ph): I would be surprised if there were any statements that were consensus based according to our entire task force. Our working group three didn’t received very many comments on our last report, and that’s where a lot of these, you know, our suggestions and recommends come from our last report. And it’s kind of like that opt (ph) out thing. If you don’t hear from anybody, then you just assume that it’s OK …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Kristy (ph) …

MCKEE (ph): And so here, I like this because I like that you’re flagging your concerns, so I’m just going to highlight the concerns here, and we can maybe do something different with them or not, but please continue.

THOMAS (ph): One point about – one editorial point Kristy (ph), maybe you may wish to change language (INAUDIBLE) we recommend other in those places which do not refer to (INAUDIBLE). I think there will be a huge issue for several here with language like we suggest and such and such elements should be available and such and such elements should not be available. I think it should be something like, we suggest that, or if – like something like it has been suggested.

I personally would on the other hand of course be fine with something like, we’re suggest an investigation of this and that. But before you go (ph), I don’t think that any language like recommendation from the taskforce or suggestion from the taskforce should appear in your (INAUDIBLE).

MCKEE (ph): OK, so the we recommend and the we suggest is a little bit too strong unless it’s followed by a kind of pacification statement.

MARILYN CADE: Actually Kristy (ph), there’s two tongue (ph) anyway because this has been a non – this is an area that you’ve (INAUDIBLE). This is an area which is all about future work, so language, and I think that will begin to address Steve (ph), you’re concern and Thomas’ (ph) as well, language that says the taskforce proposes better work in the following areas, and then you wouldn’t use. You would still need to use language that say, that uses that recommendation word.

MCKEE (ph): Thank you so much. I was working on that last night, and I said, I give up.

MARILYN: Can you try that and see if that captures it?

KRISTY: Sure …

MCKEE (ph): Well, because then I can remove we suggest, we recommend if we just say that we propose work in the following areas, I can – I don’t even have to use sentences anymore. I can just use clauses.

MARILYN: Exactly, exactly …

MCKEE (ph): Yes, because I don’t want to pretend that we’re recommending things that we’re not recommending. I think that would be a bad thing to do, so I really like that suggestion.

STEVE: Marilyn, if I may ask. What’s (INAUDIBLE). Is it really the same deadline as the consensus policies and action recommendation 104 (ph) or can we delay this for a week.

CADE: We can – we can delay it for a week and maybe that’s what I should just tell Bruce (ph) who’s in relatively frequent contact with me, and what we’ve decided to do is present a report which focuses on the two areas where policy changes are being recommended. We will be hoarding (ph) our report, and posting the second portion of our report two weeks later. I’ll have to look at that, because I don’t he can do it in a week. We’ve got travel for some of us who – but if we did – if we get – if we post this one by the 30^th, if we have to. We post part A, and we need to say part B is coming, and set a date by which part B is coming. Should be try to post part B before people go to – go to Amsterdam?

THOMAS (ph): We should at least try that.

CADE: I like it. Team, what do you think?

MCKEE (ph): I’m more comfortable with that. It’ll give people a better opportunity to add the few (ph), and also to keep focusing on (INAUDIBLE) and access.

CADE (ph): And that would help me with Rom’s (ph) report as well. Steve (ph)?

METALITZ (ph): Sounds good to me.

MCKEE (ph): OK, how about I skip down to the last two pages of this. What are legitimate uses for searching (INAUDIBLE) data, because I’m going to change the format above so it better reflects what we’ve just discussed. And then we’ll get back to that. So what – I changed the header. The header was terrible. The header now reads, “what are some legitimate uses for searching (INAUDIBLE) data:”

STEVE: And put legitimate in quotes or something?

MCKEE (ph): Yes. I will put legitimate in quotes.

THOMAS (ph): And then we should really go through and remove the ones that are just about general query (INAUDIBLE). I think we should strongly restrict this to advanced searches.

MCKEE (ph): OK. What about adding, I have a question before anybody gets too big on this. What about adding demographic or census based information? Is that appropriate?

STEVE: The header is where.

MCKEE (ph): Under this header of what are some legitimate uses for searching through (ph) this data.

STEVE: I think Thomas’ (ph) point is well taken that isn’t this supposed to be focused on enhanced searchability?

MCKEE (ph): Well, it’s yes. This should all be focused on – this whole thing should be focused on enhanced searchability. That’s why the header was incorrect, because the header had said what are legitimate uses for using (INAUDIBLE) data, which was incorrect, so that has been corrected to what are some legitimate uses for searching (INAUDIBLE) data. Because searching …

THOMAS (ph): (INAUDIBLE).

MCKEE (ph): I don’t agree with that at all, but OK, I would like to hear an argument on that.

STEVE: I’m sorry, say that again. I didn’t hear you.

THOMAS (ph): I thought that (INAUDIBLE) will have to remove most of his (INAUDIBLE) because it’s really argument on general access to who has data, not necessarily on advanced search …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: … I’m not sure whether I’m in agreement or not, but I think we can deal with that – let’s just go through the decisions we have to made today.

THOMAS (ph): I’m very comfortable with that.

METALITZ (ph): I’m going to have to drop off here since it’s about 1:15, but I will circulate a revised accuracy piece that I hope reflects the conversation and I try to get that out tonight. Thank you for obviously quick turnaround …

CADE: Thanks Steve (ph).

METALITZ (ph): OK, thank you.

THOMAS (ph): Marilyn, maybe we should just really try to wrap up and look at the federal (ph) (INAUDIBLE). You said you are going to travel, that means (INAUDIBLE) conference call next week?

CADE: You know, I can do another conference call on Wednesday if that’s needed – if people feel that that’s needed. I am just – I’m going to be with my parents. They expect me to work. They would shocked if I didn’t.

KRISTY: You are from the Midwest.

CADE: I am from the Midwest. So I can do another conference call on Wednesday, and that may needed, and it is beginning to sound to me like it is.

THOMAS (ph): Maybe we should reverse the slot and reverse that conference call mostly to giving a final nod to one (ph) and four (ph), and I don’t really think we will have much to …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.

THOMAS (ph): … maybe if we have some more (INAUDIBLE) we can discuss that, and if we don’t have it then we’ll be ready for our conference call.

MARILYN: We need to walk through Thomas (ph) how we tie the pieces together. The documentation and the comments, those things, and I need to finish the drafting of the proposed workshop. I have at least from the guys (ph) here now. It’s going to take a little push on our side to make sure that the private sector is involved in, but we have an agreement that we’re going to have included. The (INAUDIBLE) have been traveling and not able to get back to me, so I need to lay something out in the (INAUDIBLE) to be looked at on Wednesday. I’ll try to have something in – I want to propose something in March at the ICANN (ph) meeting rather than there being separate things that are being held in other parts of the world that the taskforce will have difficulty participating in.

OK?

MARILYN: OK, I will modify the way this way laid out in the beginning …

KRISTY : And look for, and then I’ll send it back out and I’ll send it out for comment, and I look forward to everyone just tearing it up.

MARILYN: And I will reserve the bridge (ph) for. It might have to be twelve your time. I’ve got something else that might be interfering.

THOMAS (ph): Who’s time?

CADE: My time, right Kristy (ph)?

MCKEE (ph): No one’s time. Sorry. It may be an hour later.

.

MARILYN: Thank you Thomas (ph). Thanks to everyone who’s still on the call. Karen (ph), thank you, Fran (ph) …

COLEMAN): Have a nice holiday with your family, Marilyn.

CADE: And a happy turkey day to both of you …

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thanks everyone ….

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: … too quickly.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thanks everyone.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK, goodbye.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Bye, bye.

END

___________________________

We welcome your feedback on this transcript. Please go to http://www.emediamillworks.com/feedback/ or call Elizabeth Pennell at 301-731-1728 x138.