WHOIS TF

November 27, 2002

ATTENDEES:
Marilyn Cade -   Co-Chair
Tony Harris – Co-Chair
Thomas Roessler – GA representative
Abel Wisman - GA representative
Ken Stubbs – Registrars
Karen Elizaga
Steve Metalitz – IP representative
Laurence Djolakian – IP representative
Bret Fausett

 

OPERATOR:  This is for Marilyn Cade.  CID – DMC, five, nine, nine, three.

 

Pardon the interruption – the call is being recorded.

 

GLEN (ph):  Hello?  Is anyone on the line?

 

ABEL (ph):  Good afternoon.

 

GLEN (ph):  Hello.  Who is this?

 

ABEL (ph):  Abel (ph).

 

GLEN (ph):  Hi, Abel (ph) – it’s GLEN (ph).

 

ABEL (ph):  Hi, GLEN (ph).

 

GLEN (ph):  I think that we are the only two on the line.

 

ABEL (ph):  That’s OK – it’s nice and quiet, isn’t it?

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes, it is.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes (ph).

 

GLEN (ph):  Hello, Thomas (ph).

 

ABEL (ph):  Hi, Thomas (ph).

 

THOMAS (ph):  … extend the pleasure …

 

GLEN (ph):  Abel (ph), we’re you called up, too?

 

ABEL (ph):  Sorry?

 

GLEN (ph):  Were you called up?  Did they call you?

 

ABEL (ph):  Yes – they did.

 

GLEN (ph):  OK.  Thank you.  And that worked fine.  Good.

 

MARILYN CADE:  Hello?

CADE:  How are you?

 

Thomas Roessler :  You sound so relaxed.

 

GLEN (ph):  Marilyn (ph), you sound a different person.

 

CADE:  Because I’m in the room with my mother.

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes.  I think you should get your mother more often.

 

CADE:  I’ll tell her you said so.

 

I’m having a big problem with my cell phone, which isn’t (INAUDIBLE).  Because I’m roaming it’s not charging very well.  And so what I’m going to do is to start the call, start us walking through this and then ask if anyone has – I have Steve (ph)’s (ph) new documents.  Let me ask if we have any other new documents from anyone because I haven’t been able to get online.  I have to hang up the phone in order to do that.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Did you get the last one?

 

CADE:  I have Steve (ph)’s (ph).

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I don’t think there is much, is there?  Except Thomas (ph) said there’s a link on the dot name ...

 

CADE:  I saw that.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... summary for (INAUDIBLE) but that’s the last one.

 

CADE:  OK – I saw that.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I don’t see – I haven’t seen anything after Steve (ph)’s (ph).  But then again I must be honest, I haven’t been online in the last hour and a half so a lot could have happened.

 

CADE:  OK.  And I didn’t see anything from Karen (ph).

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No.  Well, maybe – Thomas (ph), do you know anything about it?  Do you see anything else?

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think Karen (ph) sent something immediately after the call on Monday and nobody followed up.  So ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... I suppose we are …

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, I offered Kristy some help but I didn’t get a reaction so ...

 

CADE:  Kristy is traveling.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

 

CADE:  Kristy is driving.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  Perhaps I should have sent it to Thomas (ph) but I didn’t think about it.

 

THOMAS (ph):  What did you – what did you ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  You were – you were working on – you were working on the redraft, weren’t you on ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  (INAUDIBLE)

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, so ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  (INAUDIBLE)

 

CADE:  But we don’t – we’re not going to publish that.  We’re just going to …

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes – I know.

 

CADE:  ... right – a placeholder for it.

THOMAS (ph):  … someone was on it.

 

CADE:  Good.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Does Kristy have the draft?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No, she didn’t.  She didn’t tell me that you were working on it but she didn’t send me the draft so I didn’t understand.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK …

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I couldn’t do that much about it.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  Thomas (ph), I’ve been – I have (INAUDIBLE) archives so I have no archives at all.  But (INAUDIBLE) through I got back online yesterday ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I can hardly hear you because we have got a lot of background noise.

 

CADE:  Yes – I don’t know ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  Hold on – I’ll see if I can find a quieter spot.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It might help.

 

CADE:  I need for somebody to send me Karen’s (ph) latest document.  It’s in my archives but I can’t get to my archives …

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I haven’t got it either – or not here at least.

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

BRETT (ph):  … I’ve got it.  I’ll send it to you right now.

 

CADE:  Great – thanks.  I won’t be able to get it ...

 

GLEN (ph):  Who was that?  Who was that?

 

CADE:  Brett (ph).

 

GLEN (ph):  Brett (ph)?

 

CADE:  Yes.  OK – why don’t – why don’t we – why don’t we do the roll call again?  And then we’ll – so we have Brett (ph) and we have Thomas (ph) and we have Abel (ph) and Grant (ph) and Marilyn (ph) and we don’t have Ken (ph) or Laurence (ph) or – and Steve (ph) was going to be on late.  So ...

 

GLEN (ph):  And Tony is  not on yet.

 

Tony Harris :  Yes – Tony

 

CADE:  Sorry –Tony.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK – Marilyn (ph) (INAUDIBLE) – I’m going to step away from the phone for about two minutes.

 

CADE:  OK.  What I’m going to do is dial in and pick back up.  I’m going to have to hang up.  I’m going to get off my cell phone, which won’t hold a charge for more than about a minute and a half it appears and pick that document up and then I’ll get back on the LAN line.

 

But why don’t we work out what we’re going to do today?  We – I couldn’t tell when Steve (ph) was going to join us.  And the main document that I have right now in front of me for us to look at is Steve (ph)’s (ph) document and then going to Karen’s (ph) redraft.

 

Why don’t we take a quick look at Steve (ph)’s (ph) document and see if we have any concerns about it.  We can then just table those concerns and come back to see when he joins us.

 

This would ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That’s fine.

 

CADE:  ... this would be – and we – this would be the policy recommendation so I do envision the heading meeting to change today.

 

So it’s clear that the task force is recommending policy changes.  And then I would suggest that we number this Roman one “Enforcement of Existing Contractual Obligations” so that then we can go down to – because in order to walk through this for the names council it’s going to be easier if we have everything labeled.

 

So I would put an “A” – if that makes sense to people.

 

Hi – who just joined us?

 

Laurence (ph) – hello.

 

CADE:  Hi, Laurence (ph).

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Bon jour, Laurence (ph).

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Bon jour.

 

CADE:  We have Brett (ph), Thomas (ph), Abel (ph), Glen (ph), Marilyn (ph), Tony (ph), you and me and we know that Steven’s (ph) going to be in a little bit late.

 

Who just joined us?

 

KAREN (ph):  This is Karen (ph).

 

CADE:  Hi, Karen (ph).

 

KAREN (ph):  Hi, Marilyn (ph).  How are you?

 

CADE:  Good.  Brett (ph), Thomas (ph), Abel (ph), Glen (ph), Marilyn (ph), Laurence (ph), Tony (ph), Karen (ph).

 

OK – we’re just starting with Steve (ph)’s (ph) document.  And I was suggesting that we need a consistency to all of them.

 

So, for instance, the first item – the task force recommends.  I probably am going to need to change that to be a heading of “Policy Recommendations.”

 

And then we need to figure out where – if – where we have – if we have something in this section that is not consensus – I don’t think we do anymore but we just want to make sure that we ...

 

Because we have to submit this to the names council let me just be very clear.

 

So I was suggesting that a Roman one be “Enforcement of Existing Contractual Obligations”  and put an “A” beside ICANN should work with all relevant parties.

 

So the policy recommendation is actually “A” – right – it would be 1A (ph) and that’s the policy recommendation.

 

And then we have A1 (ph), A2 (ph), A3 (ph), A4 (ph), A5 (ph) ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  This is really – I’m sorry but I don’t think that most of these points are policy recommendations as implemented.  Unfortunately the recommendations ...

 

I don’t think you should (INAUDIBLE) the quality there and not change anything in the RAA (ph).

 

CADE:  We need to – we need to figure out – even recommending stronger enforcements.  Thomas (ph), I – we need to figure out where any of – whether any of these are going to require change.

 

And if they require change I think we do need to demonstrate that we have – that we have consensus for them because they – we want to be sure we get support for them.

 

What you’re saying is the contractual obligations exist already ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  … working assumption under which we were operating.

 

CADE:  Right.  I understand but, just to be clear, we’re not recommending a policy change but we are recommending a change in the enforcement of the policy.

 

So in that case – go back up to the heading.  So what should I – what should I call the heading then?

 

We can – we can come back to this but we need to name it something and to note that it’s the view of the task force that since we are – since we are not changing the RAA (ph) ...

 

Do you know – Laurence (ph), do you know whether Steve (ph) had looked at the memo from Dan (ph) to see whether or not this was referenced in Dan’s (ph) memo?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  I’m not sure.  I’m looking now, in fact.  So I’ll tell you in a moment.

 

CADE:  Yes.  So I’m just going to make a note in my version of this – title needed for this page.

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Steve (ph) is joining the call in one hour.

 

CADE:  I know.  I was hoping to get this down to a minimum number of questions that we had to engage him on.

 

TONY (ph):  How about WHOIS suggested improvements?

 

CADE:  Tony (ph), I’m sorry – where are you?

 

TONY (ph):  At the title.

 

CADE:  OK.  So just to – sorry – just to – “Improvement and Enforcement of Existing RAA Requirements Regarding WHOIS.”

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Yes – I think it’s good – yes.

 

CADE:  OK.  Got a decision – great.  And then we can pick up (INAUDIBLE) with Steve (ph).

 

OK.  Then, again, just for clarity’s sake, what I was trying to do is number this so we can think of this, Laurence (ph), as ...

 

Are you going to be in Amsterdam?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  I will be there on Saturday in principle.

 

CADE:  So you’ll be there for the names council?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Yes.  Well, it’s at 8:00 in the morning I think (INAUDIBLE) time.  It will ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It’s on Sunday morning, isn’t it?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  It’s on Saturday morning at 9:00 in Amsterdam – not 8:00.  Eight o’clock …

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Are we sure it’s on Saturday and not on Sunday morning?

 

CADE:  That’s the board – that’s the board ...

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Saturday morning at 9:00 Amsterdam time.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That’s ridiculous.

 

CADE:  Guys?  OK ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I’d have to fly out Friday night instead of Saturday morning.

 

CADE:  Here’s the problem ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That would change everything again.

 

CADE:  The board – there’s never been a change in the names council.  The board is meeting on Sunday.  The time of the board is – has been changed to I think 7:30 or something very early so that most of us who are coming from outside can – from the United States – can be there for most of it.

 

ABEL (ph):  But the names council was announced for Saturday afternoon for 3:00 or 2:00?

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes.

 

ABEL (ph):  It was – it was …

 

GLEN (ph):  No – then I’m sorry – I then got the wrong information.

 

CADE:  Yes.  They did because that – Abel (ph) is right.  I saw that as well.  And that is presenting a problem.

 

GLEN (ph):  And that wasn’t from me because I sent our information to them a long time ago.

 

CADE:  Yes – OK.  But let me – let me go to the problem.  Think of this, Laurence (ph), as you and I and Tony (ph) on the phone and various few other people there in person hopefully because it’s going to be a bizarre 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. or something in the U.S.

 

So when you look at this language think about the fact that we have to be able to explain it clearly to the rest of the names council members.

 

So 1A (ph) adequate ICANN resources should be devoted to enforcement of WHOIS related divisions of these agreements.

 

One thing we have to do that we haven’t done yet is the cost assessment.  And here I think that means this is – this is a cost to I CANN (ph) to insure that there is staff to the registrar and the registry.

 

Does anyone agree with that?

 

OK.  Two, ICANN (INAUDIBLE) registrars to identify a reliable contact point – blah, blah, blah.

 

ICANN should encourage registrars to provide training.  What about the – any comments about this?  And what about the cost assessment?

 

Again, this is a minimal cost to ICANN It seems to me to be asking them to work with the registrars to obtain that information if they are cost effective.  Is there a cost to the registrars?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  But wouldn’t a manual serve the purpose instead of training – an online manual?

 

CADE:  It might but I don’t – I don’t think that that’s the kind of thing – we wouldn’t want to get into the level of detail to tell them how to do it.

 

Besides that, I think this is going to be their responsibility to make sure that this – primarily interaction between the registrar and the ICANN staff.

 

Now the thing that is new and the registrars may object to is two small double I’s – however we say that.  That is – that is something that the registrars may object to.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Do you mean require resellers ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... et cetera?

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

And we need to be – I haven’t heard any – I don’t know whether TUCOWS comments regarding WHOIS address that but that may be something that the registrars come back and object to doing the working day comment period.  So we should be aware of that.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, maybe we shouldn’t suggest that then.  We’re probably getting into detail of what they should be doing.

 

CADE:  Well, I think the – I think that could be true.  I think that there’s something, though, that Steve (ph) has – Laurence (ph), that Steve (ph) has put forward several times and that some people maintain that the inaccuracy is at the reseller level.

 

And what we’re talking about is just insuring how the interaction takes place regarding reports of false WHOIS data.

 

Why don’t – why don’t we leave it in and see what comments we get but I think, Laurence (ph), we need to make sure that Steve (ph) and you have checked TUCOWS comments?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  That’s OK.  This – I see that TUCOWS has made comments on that but I just can’t remember.

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

LAURENCE (ph):  I think that – I think, Thomas (ph), (INAUDIBLE) these comments of TUCOWS No?

 

CADE:  Thomas (ph)?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  He’s not here.  OK – let me check – let me check now.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I was muted – that was why.

 

CADE:  OK.  Thomas (ph), did you hear Laurence’s (ph) question?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Completely.  I was muted.

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Having the comments of Marilyn (ph) I think (INAUDIBLE) having the comments – I think TUCOWS had some comments on fees, on the role of the resellers.

 

And I – and I – (INAUDIBLE) I remember (INAUDIBLE) these comments of TUCOWS Am I right?

 

Thomas Roessler :  I’m not sure – I’m not sure if they were talking about resellers.  I seem to recall that (INAUDIBLE) said something about a full-time staff for it or something, which would be required by the original command.

 

Wait a moment – I have the summary around somewhere (INAUDIBLE).  (INAUDIBLE) the summary of (INAUDIBLE) Tucows That’s – I have summary of issues, summary of (INAUDIBLE) what I’m looking for.

 

KEN STUBBS (ph):  Hello, Marilyn (ph)?

 

CADE:  Yes?

 

STUBBS (ph):  Hi – it’s Ken Stubbs (ph).

 

CADE:  Hi, Ken (ph).

 

STUBBS (ph):  Listen, I have to apologize.  I couldn’t get out of the commitment that I got here.  And I just had to pop out long enough to say I’m sorry.  I tried like hell to make every one of the meetings but this one came up so late that I just – I don’t know what to say but I just can’t get out.

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STUBBS (ph):  I also thought it was going to be at 11:00 and not 12:00.  So that’s my own – I just couldn’t do anything about it.

 

CADE:  We’re walking through one last time and just trying to identify title change and other minimal things ...

 

STUBBS (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  ... and do we have the documentation?

 

STUBBS (ph):  I posted out the information so far to the registrars again.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STUBBS (ph):  But the request for comment – I’m a little disappointed that some of the other ...

 

I think Tim (ph) is in Bangladesh.  I think that’s the reason why he couldn’t make the call.  And I don’t know where Phillip (ph) is.  So I’ll review it very closely.  And I don’t see any real snakes in the grass or any problems.

 

The only thing I got was another post from Scott Hollenbeck (ph) expressing concerns on the 15 days.  But I think Karen (ph) did an excellent job of responding to him.

 

So I think we’ve identified the concerns there and the fact that we don’t have adequate history to determine really what time period is totally effective.  So ...

 

CADE:  Yes.  And Brett (ph) is on.  I know you can’t stay.  Brett (ph) is on.

 

Brett (ph) has posted actually an excellent personal experience that I think has added to this.  We’ll ask him to talk about that in a few minutes as well.

 

BRETT (ph):  Yes – I’d be happy to add in whenever is appropriate.

 

CADE:  Great.

 

STUBBS (ph):  Yes.  And, Steve (ph), I’m comfortable with your wording.  I don’t think you and I have any problems with where we stand at this point in time.  I can’t guarantee that some registrar is going to pop up at the last minute but that’s no different than anyone else.  And all I’ll do is pass the comments on to you.

 

I don’t see any significant change in position at this point in time from the registrars.

 

I’m waiting for – we have a conference call in the next few days for the registrars prior to the names council meeting.  So ...

 

CADE:  So you should have the final posted document then.

 

STUBBS (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  Good.  Right – and then you could talk specifically about that.

 

Could we do these – before you have to leave – we do these constituencies’ comments?  There’s ...

 

STUBBS (ph):  I’ve indicated that to them as well.  I’ll give copies to Mike (ph) and the registrar X-Com (ph).

 

One thing I will say is if we do have any issues that arise between now and our conference call and may very well ask either you, Marilyn (ph), or possibly you, Marilyn (ph), and whoever is responsible for writing the report for the specific working groups such as Steve (ph) or Karen (ph) or so forth to possibly be available for a short time period during that conference call to answer any questions.  It may be helpful there.

 

CADE:  Do you know when the call is?

 

STUBBS (ph):  Well – yes.  Tentatively the call – hold on for a second – you’ll have to excuse me – I believe that the call is scheduled for the Monday before the meeting in Amsterdam.

 

CADE:  That would be the 9th.

 

STUBBS (ph):  Yes – I believe it’s the 9th.  But I’m not 100 percent certain.  I’ll let you know as soon as I know for certain, OK?

 

CADE:  Great – thank you.  And we will pass your message on to Steve (ph).  He hasn’t joined us yet.

 

STUBBS (ph):  All righty (ph) – fine.  Thank you.

 

STEVE (ph):  I joined about two minutes ago.

 

CADE:  Steve (ph) – good.

 

STUBBS (ph):  I hope you heard my comments, Steve (ph).

 

STEVE (ph):  I did – thank you.

 

STUBBS (ph):  All right.

 

STEVE (ph):  I’d be glad to be available for that call as soon as it is scheduled and (INAUDIBLE).

 

STUBBS (ph):  OK – thank you very much.

 

CADE:  Thanks.

 

STUBBS (ph):  Bye, bye.

 

CADE:  Great.  We have – let me just tell you what we’ve done so far, Steve (ph).  Has anyone else joined us?

 

Has anyone else joined?

 

OK – what we’ve done so far is I’ve suggested that we add a title and we add Roman numerals in a few places so that as we walk through this with the names council it’s going to be easier to do.

 

The proposed title is – for your section is “Suggested Improvements and Enforcement of Existing RAA Requirements Regarding WHOIS.”

 

STEVE (ph):  Fine.  OK – except that that section also does get into some things that aren’t just improvements (INAUDIBLE) but the main thrust of it I agree.

 

CADE:  Well, actually that’s what we might need to do, Steve (ph), is to divide it into – …

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  ... I was suggesting to people.  For clarity’s sake, in walking through this with the names council envision the fact that many of them are not going to be – this is going to be really detailed for them.

 

So I’ve added a Roman one to enforce – I’d like to add a Roman one to enforce (INAUDIBLE) contractual obligations.  And then a capital A for ICANN  Should Work With All Relevant Parties.”

 

Then that makes the rest of this as we go through it and if a names council member has a question, it’s easy to refer to Roman one A1 (ph), et cetera.

 

Then ...

 

STEVE (ph):  That sounds good to me.

 

CADE:  ... I’m asking people if they could help to identify as we go through this where there is a cost because we need to in the cost section note an explanation of whether the task force considered that there might be costs and who the costs would go to.

 

On Roman one A1 (ph) I suggested the cost was an ICANN staff cost.

 

And probably on Roman two it’s still part of the staff costs.

 

On three my assessment would be that this is minimal cost to either the registrars or to ICANN.

 

Roman – and I’m sorry – four – again, I think that the minimal cost and the improved efficiency should justify it.

 

Steve Metalitz :  No only improved efficiency but we would have more data about how the system operates …

 

CADE:  Good.  I’ll ...

 

CADE:  ... good.  I’ll add that into my comments on that.  OK?

 

Thomas Roessler :  I think that five should get something like a capital B because (INAUDIBLE) mechanisms but …

 

CADE:  I think that’s right because this is – this is still action for ICANN but we would probably need to label it.  Capital B, Steve (ph) …

 

Thomas Roessler :  It would be 1-B (ph).

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.  ICANN should supplement?

 

CADE:  Right.  OK – then we go – then would we – then we would need to – you would need to change the “A” to one or ...

 

Yes – I think you need to change the “A” then to numbers underneath that?

 

Thomas Roessler :  That’s right.

 

CADE:  Not to get bogged down in this – so we – ICANN should remind registrars local provision ...

 

A functional definition based on the actual usability of contact data should be used during accurate and unreliable ...

 

I think – do we need to say here that we – the task force did not propose an extensive definition of inaccurate but we are proposing that a functional definition because we got accused of ...

 

Actually I’m happy with what you’ve done here.  I just was thinking out loud about the – so the task force is prosing ...

 

This is going to be something of a judgment call, right, Steve (ph) ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  ... because if I use my ISP’s (ph) e-mail address you’ll still be able to reach me?

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  OK.  Anything on “B”?

 

And, again, on the cost that should be minimal back cost for the reminding.

 

OK – “B”?

 

Steve Metalitz :  Which is now two?

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

Now this is actually a policy change, Steve (ph) – right?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes, it is.  Well, to the extent that it modifies the advisory.

 

CADE:  Yes – OK.  Something we said before you came in – then I think we should go back up and have a heading – an insert before “B” that says – or maybe we should put it before B2 (ph) – that says – tell me where you think it ought to go.  I’m going to leave it up to you.

 

But we need to say, “The RAA – a modification ...”

 

We’re modifying the advisory but what is the – what is the basis for the deliberately provided incorrect data?  Is that ...

 

STEVE (ph):  That’s from the – that’s a quote from the advisor

 

CADE:  And it wasn’t based on anything else?

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.  I don’t think so in that phrase of yours in the contract.

 

This whole section was fine.  It’s now “B” or ...

 

CADE:  “B.”

 

STEVE (ph):  ... has to do with ...

 

CADE:  Modifications.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... modifications to the advisory, which the advisory was an attempt to ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... interpret or help the ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... registrar to understand …

 

CADE:  So you would just add that heading at “B” – the modifications for the advisor are required for the following?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

And, Brett (ph), this might be where we want to discuss 15 days.  We have to discuss it somewhere – we might as well discuss it here.

 

BRETT (ph):  Sure.  And ...

 

CADE:  Specifically address then what would now be three.

 

BRETT (ph):  OK.  For those who just joined – we were discussing the 15 days showing the business constituency list.  And I shared a personal experience that Marilyn (ph) wanted me to raise back to the group, which is that shortly after ICANN put up it’s internet form allowing people to submit complaints about WHOIS data, I got a notice from my registrar telling me that ICANN had asked – had notified it that I had inaccurate WHOIS data in my personal domain name, lextechs.com (ph) and that I needed to immediately give my registrar corrected WHOIS information or face possible deletion of my domain name within seven days.

 

And the reason that they picked – my registrar picked seven days was because, of course, they had an obligation to get back to ICANN within 15 days.

 

So in reality the registrar was giving the registrant an even shorter period of time.

 

My personal gripe with the way that it all worked out is – was that – was that the complaint against my WHOIS data was actually false and fraudulent.

 

My WHOIS data was correct.  And this fraudulent complaint was passed a long from ICANN to my registrar to me and under the thought that I would have my domain name deleted within seven days when, in fact, all of the data was correct.  There was no attempt to verify the incorrect thing before it got to me.

 

So not only did I think that we ought to extend that 15 day deadline to something like 30 days or at least give a minimum period that the registrant gets to get back to its registrar rather than having a 15 day deadline that I understand applies for registrars to respond to ICANN so that the timeline to the registrants is actually dependent upon whatever the registrar wants to do.

 

And a uniform time for registrants would be a good idea.

 

And at least on the (INAUDIBLE).

 

I’m getting some interference.  I hope you can hear me.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  We can hear you.

 

BRETT (ph):  The idea that ICANN simply accepts a – I believe an e-mail address and a name – although it does log IP addresses of people who submit complaints – I think it’s insufficient.

 

I think people whoa re going to lodge a complaint about inaccurate WHOIS data ought to give more details about who they are.  And then once they’ve submitted an e-mail address ICANN ought to automatically send them back a confirmation e-mail that they ought to respond to from that e-mail address before a complaint actually gets submitted to someone like me because in my instance I was pretty – I was pretty outraged and let Dan Halloran (ph) and Louis Touton  at ICANN know that – about the problems.

 

I was pretty outraged that I was almost – could have lost my domain name had I not responded within seven days to something that was utterly fraudulent.

 

So that ought to be a concern to a lot of people.

 

CADE:  Could I ...

CADE:  Yes – and let’s just take some questions for you.  I think that would be good and very helpful.

 

I have Thomas (ph) first.

 

STEVE (ph):  This is Steve (ph).  I’d like ...

 

CADE:  And Steve (ph).  And I have a couple of questions for you, too, Brett (ph).

 

But let’s start with Thomas (ph) and Steve (ph) and anybody else?

 

MIKE (ph):  And Mike (ph) at the end but I’m considering.

 

CADE:  OK.  And let me just say that if I drop off, guys, would you guys just keep going (INAUDIBLE) Tony (ph) (INAUDIBLE).  And I’ll be back as soon as I can bow back in.

THOMAS (ph):  Perhaps I’m slightly confused.  As far as I know the RAA registrar can only establish a (INAUDIBLE) contract when he hasn’t gotten a response for 14 days.

 

So in the scenario you were describing actually I think the registrar would have had no reason – had no right to cancel your domain name.  Well that’s (ph) confusing.

 

BRETT (ph):  As Dan (ph) explained it to me the timeline that – my agreement with my registrar ...

 

The agreements between registrants and registrars have some common provisions like requirement to be bound by the ERP.  They have other provisions that are unique in that you need to shop around because of choice of law and things like that.

 

My registrar had a provision that I had to respond within a very short period of time to a complaint that it was inaccuracy.  That’s not uniform among the registrars.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So your regular registrar actually made up (INAUDIBLE) as opposed to (INAUDIBLE) the RAA, right?

 

CADE:  Yes.  And ...

 

BRETT (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  ... that’s very common, guys.  We’re finding that in the (INAUDIBLE) task force so it’s very common to have these unique requirements.  The (INAUDIBLE) task force is recommending against being able to establish things that are not consistent with the contract but I won’t go more into that.

 

But those unique requirements are very common and not visible to the registrar.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, (INAUDIBLE) what one can do about that (INAUDIBLE) doesn’t even use a leeway they have.

 

BRETT (ph):  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  … the registrar in your case, quite frankly.

 

CADE:  Well, I think – I think what Brett (ph) was recommending is that there needed to be a standard period of time for the registrant because that’s ...

 

Is that – is that what you said, Brett (ph)?

 

BRETT (ph):  Yes.

 

A – the registrant – if the deadline is 15 days we need to make clear who that applies to.  Is that the time from the ICANN complaint to the registrar for the registrar to respond?  In which case the registrant as a practical matter may have substantially less than 15 days.

 

Or is that a timeline for the registrant to respond to its registrar?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  … still in progress here?

 

CADE:  Yes, it is.  I just wanted to see if – Thomas (ph), are you – do you want to come back with another question or ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  I just wanted to speculate on what we actually mean here as a 15 day period on three, seven, seven, two of the RAA so it’s time for the registrar.  But maybe Steve (ph) can say more about that.

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes – I would agree.  That’s what’s in the RAA.  That’s what we’re about.

 

We’re not in the business of telling registrars what their contracts should be with registrants and I suppose it’s a competitive issue.  If you don’t like their policy you can go to a registrar that has a different policy.

 

What the RAA says is 15 days.

STEVE (ph):  I agree with you – I appreciate hearing your story.  We’ve had many, many hours of discussion about this issue and this task force.  And this recommendation that you’re responding to – well, it’s been changed but this issue has been on the table for at least two or three months.  So ...

 

BRETT (ph):  Well, that doesn’t mean that this is ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... come forward now and say – and we even asked ICANN.  We said, “What steps we should be taking to try to screen complaints?”

 

And they told us – they explained what their procedure was.  I posted that and nobody commented on it.

 

BRETT (ph):  Well, Steve (ph), we’re still going to have a comment period here and you’re either going to hear it now on my phone call or you’re going to hear it in the comment period.

 

So when do you want to try to take account of it?

 

CADE:  I think, guys ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Well ...

 

CADE:  Look at – hang on – hang on – look at “C.”  What I’m trying to get them to do is understand and I think Brett (ph) very clearly is receiving some – will be receiving some other comments from the BC (ph) along these same lines as well and yet displays that we have this language in “C,” which I am no longer looking at but I’m (INAUDIBLE).

 

But I think it offers a place to say, “OK – we are getting comments even now that indicate that there are some concerns about the 15 days.  We’re not – we’re not specifically – right now I think we’re saying in the RAA – in the RAA it’s 15 days.  But we are getting some comments that indicate that there may be concerns with 15 days.”

 

We really want to have in mind what modification, if any, we want to propose otherwise we’re going to get comments throughout the 14 days and have a line added by the names council without a recommendation from the task force.  And I don’t think that’s where we want to go either.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Brett (ph), my I suggest some wording.  I think we may be able to take this into account fairly quickly.

 

If you like – and this is “C” – this is the paragraph which begins, “There is not (INAUDIBLE) task force.”

 

In the third last line after the 15 day period I think we could insert something like the words “in RAA three dot seven dot seven dot two at its actually implementation by registrars.”

 

The actual implementation is noted (INAUDIBLE) for money targets there.

 

BRETT (ph):  I’m sorry – say that again, Thomas (ph).

 

THOMAS (ph):  In “C” – third last line – after the words, “Fifteen days period ...”

 

Maybe I read the entire sentence to you as a member.  The sentence is, “ICANN should work with registrars over the next six months to monitor and collect more extensive data with specific impact of the 15 days period in RAA three dot seven dot seven dot two.  At the actual (INAUDIBLE) by the registrar on good faith registration in particular from developing countries that are (INAUDIBLE) inquiries.”

 

Developing countries language is in there because there were particular concerns involved postal systems getting involved, which maybe in (ph) 15 days.

 

Would that be something we could go with?

 

BRETT (ph):  That it should be studied more?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

BRETT (ph):  At a minimum – yes – it should be studied more.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Personally I’m certain to come to a recommendation on extending that 15 day period.  But ...

 

Steve Metalitz :  I think that most of us are in favor of extending the period it’s just that I understand from (INAUDIBLE) that the IPC (ph) is somewhat against it.  But that’s the only – the only thing that I can come up with.

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Yes – that’s right.  The IPC (ph) will be in favor of it coming in.  But ...

 

Abel Wisman :  Yes.  Would the IPC (ph) consider an extension (INAUDIBLE) only when there is a consensus with the rest of the task force.

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, to speak to – this is Steve (ph) (INAUDIBLE).  Getting back to the language that Thomas (ph) proposed, which I think is an improvement from what’s in there now.

 

What – where I think we’ve come down on this in prior discussions was that there are concerns about his and let’s try to get some more data about how this actually works.

 

Abel Wisman:  Can’t we – can’t we (INAUDIBLE) in the meanwhile or at least suggest to ICANN in the meanwhile in direct wording that they would be lenient at the very least with (INAUDIBLE) considering not only that in a shorter term that the registrants will have but also the postal problems that they may have in other zones than America.

 

CADE:  Can I – sorry, guys – I was off for a minute but I wanted to raise – I wanted to raise another question about timeframes.  Let’s just think for just a minute here very logically about how long it’s going to take for ICANN to be able to do some of this, OK?

 

I think we need to be thinking about timeframes.

 

It’s very – it’s very likely that ICANN won’t be able – they’ll have to have a prioritization for what they do about implementation.  And the task force might be able to make a contribution to saying, “In gathering more information that we recommend that there be a focus on gathering additional information about the incidents such as the one that Brett (ph) described.  And then based on that information during implementation if necessary consideration could be given to an extension of the time.”

 

And the task force itself ought to be thinking in the next 14 days what do they think is a necessary extension of time?  What do they think is reasonable?

 

And then we don’t have to really have a big argument about this.  We try to get more documentation gathered and we try to provide some guidance.  And that would (INAUDIBLE) the idea that if there’s evidence that postal delivery is leading to risk that that would need to be taken into account.

 

(INAUDIBLE) a period of leniency I would think, Steve (ph), that they could – until they get implementation negotiated?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.

 

Abel Wisman:  Well, they have the liberty, of course?

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, we don’t – we don’t know what they’re going to do because the only instance in which this has really come into play – Verisign (ph) took action ...

 

CADE:  That’s not the only incident.  They have ongoing communication with the registrars.  I’ve talked ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, that’s true.  But the only instance in which they ...

 

CADE:  Had ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... threatened to use the only enforcement tool that’s available to them – or the ultimate enforcement tool which is available to them – there was a response.

 

Brett Fauset:  Yes.  From what I understand there have been thousands actually of these complaints.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  Well  ...

 

CADE:  And they usually get a good response from the registrars.

 

Steve metalitz:  Yes – I think that’s – I think that’s right.

 

Brett Fauset:  I have a question.

 

CADE:  Sorry – I know we’re getting – so we need to get back to the queue and I lost track of where the queue was.

 

We were – Steve (ph), Brett (ph) and then Abel (ph).  And, Thomas (ph), do you want to go back into queue?  And then ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes, please.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

Let’s do Thomas (ph) and then let’s try to wrap up on this.

 

BRETT (ph):  And then – this is Brett (ph).  I’d like to get in the queue for awhile ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

BRETT (ph):  ... for a final point.

 

CADE:  Of course.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I was just wondering what agencies have actually given provisions on this issue?  I think we have one not having a follow-up registrar position we have in the (INAUDIBLE) program.  And all of these comments were going to the same direction.

 

I think we have a constituency statement from the registries on this.

 

I’d like to understand what Registry constituency is saying on this because I’m seeming to hear mixed signals from representatives from that constituency.

 

I think we also know that IPC (ph) is opposed and maybe we can get some overview on where we really are on that topic and what degree we have contenders.

 

CADE:  OK.  Let me – let me – Karen (ph), can you summarize for us where the registry constituency is on this?

 

KAREN (ph):  On the 15 day thing?

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

KAREN (ph):  We – they’re concerned – the constituency is concerned that the 15 days is not long enough but understand that the task force is going to be looking into what we – what we said we were going to do in 5C (ph).

 

So the preference is obviously for a much longer – well, not much longer – say, 30 to 45 day period to account for the issues that registrars face – mail and stuff like that.

 

CADE:  And did they take into account that there would be a standard deletion period available as well?

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

And the registrars have expressed concerns about the 15 days on and off is what I’ve seen.

 

Thomas (ph), I’ve seen some concerns from registrars.

 

TUCOWS has expressed concern about it I believe.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think almost everyone we’ve talked to expressed concerns about it.  But one or two of the big pawns I took out of our …

 

CADE:  OK.  I’m sorry – I was thinking about written and then I was going to ask you again.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Written as well.

 

CADE:  Yes.  And then ...

 

THOMAS (ph):   (INAUDIBLE)

 

CADE:  Right.  And then we got a lot of complaints – concerns about it in Shanghai.

 

OK.  And the business constituency, Brett (ph), is – you’re still exploring with them but I know that I’ve expressed some concern about it.

 

And I don’t know that we’ve heard a lot from other people.

 

BRETT (ph):  Yes.  And the – for a domain name – for information that is truly fraudulently provided in the WHOIS database I think everyone agrees that that ought to be corrected in a short time and we shouldn’t show much leniency.

 

One of the problems is that for problems like I had where the complaint itself is fraudulent and then you’re putting someone who actually has correct information in the WHOIS database and has done everything they’re supposed to do now you’re putting them on a short timeline.  I think there’s a perception that that’s unfair.

 

So one of the things we want to try to do is protect the good people and provide a backdrop for them and hopefully make sure that they hopefully don’t get sent fraudulent complaints.  And let’s focus on the people who are actually committing fraud here.

 

CADE:  OK.  I have a straw poll that I’m not asking people to commit to but before I take it, who else wants to comment, anyone?

 

STEVE (ph):  This is Steve (ph).  I would like to comment.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  Only if needed but just in case.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  You never know.  When I speak it may ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I might agree with you …

 

STEVE (ph):  I’m going to object in advance to the question of taking a straw poll on this issue in isolation.  And I want to say a little bit about what I believe the IPC’s (ph) position is on this.

 

We’re not wedded to (INAUDIBLE) abut that.  As someone on the board has recently said, this stuff wasn’t handed down from Shanghai and things can be changed.

 

But one thing we know that a 15 day rule will do is increase the amount of delinquent time that inaccurate information stays in the WHOIS database.

 

Now if that were – if there are other good reasons to change it and if that’s offset by some other changes that will help to reduce the amount of inaccurate data in the WHOIS database then I think we would be very willing to discuss this.

 

But I think Brett (ph) may have hit the nail on the head when he said – I think it was Brett (ph) who said – if it’s obviously false data then 15 – maybe 15 days is too long.  But if it’s – if it’s not obviously false data then – and in a situation such as he describes then there needs to be more time to make sure that a miscarriage of justice doesn’t occur.

 

I’m very comfortable with that.  The problem with that is that your registrars have steadfastly refused to agree to any system in which they would actually have to examine this or make a decision or have a human being apply a couple of neurons to this question.

 

If a human being were looking at this, such as is done, for example, in Dot CA (ph) for every registration and they are bigger than most registrars, if a human being were to look at this I think they could in many cases distinguish between those that ought to be canceled immediately because they obviously show that the registrant is in material breech or those in which maybe more than 15 days are required.

 

But we’ve had absolutely no sense that anybody in the registrar constituency is willing to sign up for that.

 

So under the current circumstances we can’t support changing one provision of the system that we know will increase the amount of inaccurate data in the system when there’s no (INAUDIBLE) changes to try to reduce that even though ...

 

Well, I’ll just leave it at that.  That’s – I think that’s the overall position and so I don’t support a straw poll on this question in isolation .

 

CADE:  Would you – I see.  And so you’re telling me that I can’t even tell you what my proposed straw poll is in this case?

 

STEVE (ph):  No.  You can tell me what it is.  But if it’s that I can tell you I object to it.

 

CADE:  Well, maybe we ought to step back and listen to what my proposal was, first of all.

 

I was thinking that our recommendation in three that says ICANN should work with registrars over the next six months.  That six months might actually be too long a period of time and that we might want to shorten the six months to three months so that we could actually gather information in a shorter period of time.

 

And I wanted to see what – that was – that’s one point.

 

The second point that I – occurred to me is that we have not addressed the need for an emergency situation because I think most of us assume that if it’s an emergency situation and a trademark is involved, we’ve probably gone out and gotten a subpoena anyway so we probably aren’t deal with a need for any kind of emergency hold or emergency reaction where something comes to the attention of the ICANN staff and appears to be so egregious that there is a need to intervene with the registrar and ask them to do something in a shorter timeframe.

 

I’m not suggesting that we can come to a consensus on that but it occurs to me in listening to us that if those – there are those kinds of concerns in the task force we haven’t documented them anywhere and I don’t know if the task force feels that we need to or not.

 

But my suggestion on the straw poll was the question of modifying the six months to three months in three.

 

Is that acceptable, Steve (ph), as a – as a proposal?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  … on the line.  What do you think would be the value of this – of coming back to three months?

 

CADE:  I think the value would be that we would have more (INAUDIBLE).  And since we’ve heard concerns from the registrars and registries – look – the registrars and registries have said 15 days is not enough.  And I think that that’s going to be viewed as reasoned objection.

 

We are saying that the task force doesn’t have a consensus even though we’ve taken into account the comments received and we’ve just reminded ourselves that we’ve gotten objections from the registrars and the registries.

 

We’ve gotten expressions of concern from the IPC (ph).  We haven’t heard formally from some of the other constituencies but we may.

 

So if we’re going to be in a situation where the registries and registrars are saying, “Fifteen days is not enough,” I think the task force needs to be – look outside of its – of its individual constituency concerns and say, “What kind of recommendation can we make as a task force?”

 

We’ve said, “You need to gather more data.”

 

I’m suggesting that a compromise would be to gather the data in three months.

 

And, Laurence (ph), I think that you and I in particular are going to be on the names council trying to defend this.

 

The registries and registrars have documented their concerns about 15 days.

 

Do we – I think we want to maintain as much as possible the integrity of the whole report and sending it forward.

 

LAURENCE (ph):  I agree with you.  I was wondering whether it’s realistic …

 

CADE:  Are there other concerns about that?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes – this is Steve (ph).  I don’t object to three months if we can apply that to some other provisions of the report also.

 

For example, I think item 9B (ph) we should be aiming at trying to come up with concluding the discussions on requiring registrars to spot check a sample of current registrations within three months.

 

I think that’s enough time for them to find out what – for us to talk to them about what tools are available, how much it would cost them, how much that would help in validating the accuracy of submitted contact information.

 

And so that’s an example of something that if it were implemented I think would have the impact of reducing the amount of inaccurate data in the system.

 

So let’s balance this.  Let’s put a three – if you want to put a three month time limit on it, let’s put a three month time limit on 9B (ph) and say, “The following pose changes to the agreement and needs further discussion.”

 

And then as to “B” the discussion should take place within the next three months.

 

CADE:  OK, Steve (ph), I’m going to walk through this one item at a time.  I can’t agree at this point to other kinds of changes.

 

I’m trying to get us to a point that we’ve got something that’s defensible based on the documentation we’ve received and ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, we’ve received documentation on the point I’ve just raised.  We had a – we – I believe that Thomas (ph) posted information about the frauded system that is being rolled out by the chief technical officer of the registrar constituency.  And if you talk with him, he says that that system will allow them to spot check a sample of current registrations at a cost well under one cent per registration to – in order to validate the accuracy of submitted contact information.

 

Now I don’t know whether those claims are true or not but – and there may be – well be other products out there that will do this but I don’t think we can address one of these issues in isolation.

 

CADE:  Guys, we don’t have consistence on a change let’s – but I do – here’s what I’ve heard.  I’ve heard expressions of concern from some members of the task force about the 15 days.  Steve (ph) has rejected my suggestion for modifying the statement to three months.  I’m happy with that.

 

We need to move on.  Does anybody want to make any other statement about this?  But, Steve (ph), I ...

 

ABEL (ph):  Yes …

 

CADE:  Right – Abel (ph), let me come back to you.  Steve (ph), I do want to be very clear – in the objections we’ve received we have to document the fact that we have received objections from a number of the constituencies on that.

 

STEVE (ph):  I understand that but you also have received submissions from constituencies supporting this.  So …

 

CADE:  So far I have a submission from one constituency supporting this.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  And I – and I – just noting that I don’t think Brett (ph) can forecast what the submission is going to be from the DC (ph) on this, right, Brett (ph)?

 

BRETT (ph):  That’s right.

 

CADE:  OK.  OK, Abel (ph) – you and then we’re going to move on.

 

ABEL (ph):  (INAUDIBLE) OK.  Is someone mumbling there?  OK – well, basically if we cannot – the three months or the six months – to me it doesn’t really make a big difference.  But I think it would make a difference if we – if we add what I proposed earlier on – some sort of advice to ICANN to be lenient with the – as to the concerns of the task force while their six months or three months period is active.

 

It would not be – I think disastrous for anybody – maybe for the IPC (ph) to advice ICANN to be lenient on the terms.

 

CADE:  But, Abel (ph), my point was that I’m not – let me come back to that.  My point was that – well, never mind.  I was thinking there would be a period (INAUDIBLE) implementation.  But you’re suggesting that I can – that some members – a member of the task force noted that where the incidences involved the need to use paper mechanisms to reach the registrants there may be a need for leniency?

 

ABEL (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  That would be just a comment that’s inserted there?

 

ABEL (ph):  Yes.  It’s just a comment inserted in the report.  And I think we can have consensus on that because we all know that we have to be careful with the non-American regions due to mail delays and so on and so on.

 

And this does not stop any clear fraudulent cases.  While I still stand by what I wrote a week or a week and a half ago about the registrars getting paid by credit card and being able to check whether the date is correct or not.

 

But it gives at least time for people in other areas where mail might take something longer or they’ve changed an e-mail address to reply or to react.

 

And it’s just an advice.  It’s not a final offer or whatever.  It’s just while the research is being done we advice ICANN to be lenient with the 15 day period in certain circumstances.

 

CADE:  Steve (ph)?

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, this is not an ICANN issue.  This is the registrar accreditation agreement says that after 15 days the registrar can treat that as a material breech.  So I suppose if you are going to make a recommendation it should be directed to the registrars, shouldn’t it?

 

CADE:  I think that this was reacting to the fact that ICANN is asked to police this more closely, right?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  Those (ph) who sent out the letter to – for instance, we were to sign and not the registry or the registrar.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes – but ICANN – if Verisign (ph) had taken steps on those registrations the way the other registrars apparently did they would never have gotten that letter.

 

CADE:  Can – I’m going to note that there’s an expression of concern from one of the members and move us on.  And we’ll come back to talk about how we insert under maybe the minority parts or other comments – how we deal with comments like this.

 

OK – we are at – and I’ve lost track of our number.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Marilyn (ph)?

 

CADE:  Yes?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  One – I would like to find – briefly get back to the clarification.  I think that’s (INAUDIBLE).  I don’t think I hear any objection against that.  And I think it would take care at least leave of the ambiguity which Brett (ph) identified.  So I’d like to get that in.

 

CADE:  OK.  Go back to where you were.  This is – you – this was a clarification that you asked Steve (ph) to insert?

 

Thomas Roessler :  … specific impact of the 15 day period the following would be inserted – if – it would be, “The 15 day period in RAA three dot seven dot seven dot two out of actual implementation by …

 

CADE:  And so that would be in three?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

 

CADE:  Steve (ph)?

 

STEVE (ph):  That sounds fine to me.

 

CADE:  OK – so Steve (ph)’s (ph) going to take that and insert it.

 

OK.  So now – I think this now makes six – I’m not sure what number six would be now, Steve (ph).  But it would be “C”?

 

STEVE (ph):  Well – yes – this is – yes – I guess this would be – this would probably be “C.”

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

Thomas Roessler :  I don’t think so actually because 6A (ph) would be an exercise over “A” (INAUDIBLE) policy reservation and we are in “A.”

 

Wait a moment.  It is RAA three dot seven dot “A” – partial (INAUDIBLE) classification of policies (INAUDIBLE) requiring (INAUDIBLE) verification (INAUDIBLE) registration blah, blah, blah.  Or “B” periodic (INAUDIBLE) information.

 

So what 6A (ph) actually does is to suggest policies (INAUDIBLE) and it would not be implementational (INAUDIBLE).  That’s why I adapted (INAUDIBLE) policy …

 

CADE:  I’m sorry?

 

Thomas Roessler :  I got – this is why I added the general remarks to the end (ph) of the document.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

Thomas Roessler:  Maybe it would – it would simplify this problem by changing the word “required” to “encourage.”  In the third word, “ICANN should encourage the registrar to … “

 

CADE:  That moves it from being consistent policy to being a step that ICANN can take and probably easier to implement, Steve (ph)?

 

And I would be fine with that but how do other members of the task force feel?  It’s the kind of thing that ICANN staff could then do.

 

Is that acceptable to everyone – that Steve (ph) would modify this to say, “ICANN should encourage registrars,” and that makes it still in the scope of things that the ICANN staff can accomplish?

 

LAURENCE (ph):  Yes – I think it’s a very good point.

 

CADE:  So we would then make – we could then make it six, right, Thomas (ph)?

 

THOMAS (ph):  We would make it I think “C.”

 

CADE:  “C” – sorry – yes – sorry.  OK – then how about CD (ph)?

 

Thomas Roessler :  Or C2 (ph) …

 

CADE:  C2 (ph)?

 

Steve Metalitz:  All of these things really hang on.  Remember, we broke them out into sentences – separate sentences ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

Steve Metalitz:  ... and they’re all a part of this thing.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

Steve metalitz:  I was just wondering if the wording in two isn’t too strong either for ...

 

If we are in the conduct of encouragement then it’s a little bit much to talk about being responsible for insuring that (ph).

 

I don’t have any precise wording on that.

 

CADE:  Well, it could – it could – it could just say, “Registrars are responsible.”

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Is that actually accurate?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think that’s where we had been before and we changed it to “should be” (INAUDIBLE) some questions about whether …

 

CADE:  I see.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... some relation.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK …

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I don’t really think that ...

 

TONY (ph):  Are there any cost considerations related to six?

 

CADE:  It’s going to be staff.  I was thinking about that, Tony (ph).  I was thinking that so far this is all still staff – largely staff costs for notification and communication.

 

TONY (ph):  Good.  I have a suggestion.  I don’t know if it’s appropriate at this point of the discussion.

 

CADE:  Sure.

 

TONY (ph):  But if our registrar has problems he notifies his registrants that something is wrong.  The e-mail comes back and it’s not valid.  So he has to go to paper or fax or a letter or something like that.

 

Shouldn’t there be a provision when he sells the domain name – the registrant – whereby the registrant is notified that any inaccurate data which requires a follow-up from the registrar involving expresses through mailing or whatever will be billed to the renewal of the domain name?

 

That will protect the registrar from additional costs.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I’m not sure I understand this, Tony (ph).  Are you saying that when the registrant (INAUDIBLE) with the registrar, the registrar should take this from some money deposited by the registrant with him or ...

 

TONY (ph):  No – I’m not saying he should deposit money ahead of time.  I’m just saying that if the registrant goofs up on his – on his data and the registrar cannot contact him to rectify this situation, there should be some provision when – in the conditions whereby you buy a domain name where the registrar can – when he – when he bills the registrant again – right – for the renewal ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

TONY (ph):  ... he can tell them, “Well, look – you goofed up on this.  This cost me a registered letter or a UPS or whatever it is and I’m going to bill you for this.”

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Tony (ph), how does that mix with transfers?  I think if I would be with such a registrar the registrar would say that a fraudial (ph) complaint about – and then don’t bill me for that.”

 

I would rather change registrars before I can be billed by my old registrar.

 

I’m not sure that this is where we can actually recommend anything on it and also it’s something about five and not about six.

 

TONY (ph):  I think that’s taking it way out because I’m just saying when you’re selling some service or product and that can incur – oblige you to incur an additional cost towards your customer, you should have some provision protecting you.

 

CADE:  How about – how about this, guys?  Let me – in the cost assessment – “spec costs for notification and communication.  However, costs to registrars may include additional expenses for mailing, et cetera, when e-mail notification is not usable due to inaccurate e-mail or non-response.”

 

The registrars could be – and I don’t think it can be at the time of notification, Tony (ph) – at the time of the – at the re-registration because that would include people – encourage people to transfer.

 

But I think in the provision of the registration the registrars could – registrants could be notified that any additional cost for overnight mail or other forms of delivery would be charged back to the registrant.

 

TONY (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  Now I think that may take more comment and discussion but we could put it over under the cost section as the task force understands that there may be additional cost to registrars for on reliable on paper mail, et cetera, or other forms of delivery.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Because the registrant – if the registrant has caused the problem he should pay for the cost of solving it.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Actually thinking about it is there anything in the RAA that would prevent registrars from doing this billing?

 

CADE:  I don’t think so.

 

THOMAS (ph):  It’s really business dealings …

 

CADE:  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... with most types of detail and I don’t think we should (INAUDIBLE) quite frankly.

 

CADE:  Actually, Thomas (ph), I think we do need to recognize over under the cost section that this may result in additional cost to the registrars.

 

THOMAS (ph):  No objection against that.

 

CADE:  OK?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Just against this the individual recovering the …

 

CADE:  OK.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It’s cost recovery, right?

 

CADE:  OK.  Then we will put it in and I will put it in as an issue but we won’t – we will say that the task force did not come to an agreement on how to address it.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Marilyn (ph), just a question.  I’m making the changes in the numbering here.

 

CADE:  Right.  I’m ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Are you going to give me the costs things?

 

CADE:  I’m catching that – yes.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK.

 

CADE:  OK – keep going.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Let’s see – where were we?  We were on what used to be “C” which is six which is now “C” ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... one, two, three and four there.  Have we completed that?  Ending up with the recurred for best practices about what reasonable efforts should be undertaken to investigate reported inaccuracies?

 

All right.  So then the next would be “D” I think following interim recommendations for improved enforcement.  Require further discussion?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Wouldn’t that be more – I’m just wondering – this is no longer enforcement so I think there should be room to ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Is that right, Marilyn (ph), or were you considering that all of the accuracy stuff would be Roman one?

 

CADE:  It’s up to you guys.  I was just trying to get it numbered so that when we talk about it on the names council it’s easy to talk about and the comments are easy to deal with.  And it may be better to break it up into two.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Really makes it (INAUDIBLE) to make clear that this is nothing which requires immediate action by anyone but only requires immediate discussion ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... future discussion or whatever …

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes – and then under that we would have “A” and “B”?  “A” – instructing registrars.  That would be another item that we could set a time limit on.

 

CADE:  Now you’re on “A” – “the following interim recommendation requires further discussion or another appropriate body.”

 

And then I think we should actually set the timeframe if we could there at the – at the – at the higher level, Steve (ph).

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  And I think we should suppose that this discussion – I’m happy to say a proposed three month period to undertake further discussion on this if the rest of the task force thinks that’s right.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I was under the impression that we did not adopt your proposed six – three month change.  So I am wondering why we are now in the business of doing any time limits.

 

CADE:  Hold on  – hold on.  This is a timeframe by which this task force or some other mechanism would undertake further work on this.

 

So we’re not – we’re not talking about a time limit in the same way.  We’re talking about setting a time limit to the further work of this task force or some other body.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I’m wondering if that kind of time limit is really beneficial with you.

 

CADE:  Well, I think we ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  There will be some other issues on the table next year, too.

 

CADE:  I ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So ...

 

CADE:  OK – we need to provide some kind of guidance to the names council on how long we think this additional work is going to take.  And I’m not sure that this is actually – these two items by themselves I don’t think should be – with this task force I don’t think that there is an extensive amount of ongoing discussion.

 

We would start from where we are and take this up as an item.  And I think we ought to be able to depose of it in short order.  If it’s a whole new task force that might be different.

 

Does anyone – Thomas (ph), what’s your concern about trying to conclude this within three months?  I’m trying to discuss it with a former recommendation within three months.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, I’m just wondering how many other items we’re going to put under the three months label.  We use that and the first thing we encounter in the bucket – hey, that’s first priority.

 

I have somewhat of a – I have a ...

 

CADE:  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... problem with that.

 

CADE:  OK – well, why don’t – why don’t we do this?  Steve (ph), could we just put a block for a timeframe – agree we’re going to have a timeframe?  Go through the others and then come back and assign timeframes?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes – I think we could do that.  I think one reason to distinguish this one is everything we’ve talked about up until now are – I think are things that are under the current agreement.  So ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):   ... and these are – these are two items that we’ve identified where there’s no consensus and – but they don’t – wouldn’t necessarily require a change in the RAA.

 

So when you get into changes in the RAA obviously that we have no control over the timing for that necessary because people are under agreements now.  They don’t expire until a certain point.  And therefore ...

 

CADE:  OK.  Let’s leave a placeholder at the time and keep going.  We need to speed up a little bit.  Sorry about that.  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  And then I think we would get to Roman numeral three for what is now item eight because now we’re talking about RAA changes.

 

And so we would change one to “A,” which is the redemption grace period.

 

We would change two to “B,” which is the appropriate hold status.

 

We would “C” to – three to “C,” which is ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Three to three.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... yes – review and validate WHOIS data upon renewal of a registration.

 

Now there there may be a time issue because we say “specifics require validation”, but that would be Roman number three.

 

CADE:  So it would Roman three, capital “A,” capital “B,” capital “C”?

 

STEVE (ph):  Capital “C.”

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  And then – well, we could either make the last item “D” or we could give it its own Roman numeral.  But these are proposed changes to the agreements that need further discussion.

 

So maybe again in – for clarity we would break this out as Roman numeral four, which is RAA changes needing further discussion.

 

And then we would have capital “A” in there, which is the intermediate sanctions and capital “B,” which is spot checking a sample …

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I’m sorry, Steve (ph) – you lost me on the – on the higher two levels.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So what’s currently – I think it’s eight.  What would be your new one?

 

STEVE (ph):  Roman numeral three.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Roman numeral three.  And nine would turn into what?

 

STEVE (ph):  Roman numeral four.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Roman numeral – OK.  That seems clear enough.

 

And then for the lower case characters would just turn as upper case?

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK – just trying to get through this.  That’s one correction above the general classification of things here.

 

A2 (ph) – A1 (ph), which is currently 7A (ph) – wouldn’t – on what basis would the construction be done?  Wouldn’t this be a proposed change to the RAA office then?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Tell me again which item?  Item seven?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Seven “A” according to card number eight, which is automatic – I think we either have to downgrade this from an instruction to an encouragement or a suggestion or something like that or put (INAUDIBLE) work which needs contractual changes.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think – I think this is in that – no – wait a minute.

 

Well, except that they – that it’s not a contractual change but they would have to – I suppose that they would have to ...

 

This could fall in the category of the registrars have agreed to take whatever steps for verification or re-verification that are supported by the consensus policy.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK – it’s – OK – how about a contractual change but it comes out of the policy requirements here?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think that should be made clear because the text currently reads – talks about the enforcement of existing obligations.  It should be made clear that there is no such obligation concerning (INAUDIBLE) “A” – that this would be for the policy addition .

 

CADE:  OK.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Maybe we need to reference that section of the – of the agreement that talks about consensus – abide by future consensus policies and certain validation …

 

CADE:  And you’re back at seven?  I’m sorry – where are you now?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  We’re at 7A (ph).

 

CADE:  OK.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Thomas (ph), I don’t know if you have that in front of you or else I could – if you hold on for a second I’ll go get it.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Whether I have what in front of me?  Sorry?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  In the RAA there’s a section that says they will abide by future consensus policies during periodic …

 

THOMAS (ph):  Do you mean (INAUDIBLE) policies (ph) according to section four requiring (INAUDIBLE) commercially (INAUDIBLE) verification at the time of registration of contact information, et cetera?

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Does that also refer to revalidation or something?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes – that’s the next one.  Et cetera, et cetera – or “B” periodic re-verification of such information that is re-salable.  And then comes ...

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And what section is that?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Three, seven, eight.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Three, seven, eight – OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  … RAA.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes – I know.

 

THOMAS (ph):  What should be made – what should be made clear here is that this is not a truth enforcement but really a new product.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  So should we say, “Improved enforcement of WHOIS obligations” – and we can take out the word “existing” because that’s confusing – “through development of new policies or specifications under article three point seven point eight?”

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  That’s supposed to be – yes – that’s supposed to be “A” and “B.”  I don’t think “B” is – was in the scope of three, seven, eight.  And we would have to rip off “B” and put it (INAUDIBLE) on a higher level.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I’m not sure that that’s right.  I think – well, we really haven’t had a lot of discussion about this one but this is really the plate mechanism that exists now.

 

And how we – how you – whether someone comes in and says, “I want – I’m complaining about this domain – this registration and any others that are identically registered because this contact information is false.”

 

Should those be all processed together?  I don’t see that as a – necessarily a requirement in changing consensus policy.  Obviously we don’t have a consensus on doing t so I’m not suggesting that we do.

 

But I don’t think it will require a change …

 

CADE:  Steve (ph), what is the behavior that would be required of the registrars on “B”?  Would that be ...

 

STEVE (ph):  They would be required to search their database to find all of the registrations that are registered identically to the one that's being complained about.

 

CADE:  For every complaint they received.

 

STEVE (ph):  No.  It could be only for those that are designated as such.

 

CADE:  I think that ...

 

STEVE (ph):  That's why this needs further discussion ...

 

CADE:  Yes, it does, yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... whatever the cost of that is.  We're just trying to figure out where to put it ...

 

CADE:  Right, right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... in the ...

 

CADE:  And I – what I'm saying about cost is, the cost to this is not identified since it's ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes, that requires further discussion.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  This is the kind of cost that would be zero if there were improved searchability by the public, because they could then say, all right, show me everything that's registered to (ph) (INAUDIBLE).

 

But, since they can't, (INAUDIBLE) needs a cost for the registrar and we have to determine how much that is.  That's one of the problems with ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, the cost would be moved into the searchability, but would not remain with the registrar.  But anyway, that's not really the discussion we should have.

 

So maybe we should just make – just leave it up to the top – to the same level as the entire 7A, which would – OK, what we, I think what we should do is move 7A into set what – I'm sorry – move the text (ph) which is currently behind seven, then it's the following entering recommendations, et cetera, as the text in A, that should not likely be merged, into something which specifically refers to 378 and the RAA and parts above, possible establishment of the consensus (ph) policy by a future – either this task force or another appropriate body.

 

And I think that B should most likely then be moved up to the same level, and talk about a, maybe a way to further improve this without saying how to mechanically implement it.  Just leave it open as a measure which would require further investigation.

 

CADE:  Right.  But that's – with the changes that's being proposed, Thomas (ph), I think that both these two subpoints would be in the for further discussion by this task force or other appropriate bodies.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes, so see, I want to avoid just to make any statement at this point whether 7B is within the scope of issues resort (ph) for consensus policies or not.

 

I'm trying to say this is something which may be done.  We don't know how to mandate it, or whether to mandate it, but it should be investigated.  As opposed to that, we are saying 7A is within the scope of possible consensus policies.  And we are saying that it should be investigated as a possible consensus policy.

 

CADE:  OK.  Let me make a suggestion to ease this and maybe move us along.  Why couldn't we just put a sentence, Steve (ph), between A and B and say, in addition, the task force believes – something like the following items should be also examined, but did not make a recommendation about whether it is – this is really kludgy (ph), sorry – about – did not make a – did not make a recommendation about whether it would require consensus (ph) policy.

 

STEVE (ph):  Either that or we could just say, in the heading of that, you know, item A would and item B might ...

 

CADE:  OK, good.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... require a change in ...

 

CADE:  Perfect.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... policy ...

 

CADE:  Perfect.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  Good.  Then that allows us to move along, and that'll move us along.  OK.

 

And then I've captured, cost is not identified, and requires further discussion, OK?  And I have a blank for the timeframe.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  We're now at Roman three, formerly eight.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  Roman three, formerly eight, ...

 

CADE:  And so, the only thing ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... RAA – I'm sorry, go ahead.

 

CADE:  So this says, the following proposed changes to the RAA agreements are recommended.  And in parentheses we probably need to note, and therefore, are proposed as consensus policy, right?

 

STEVE (ph):  If you think that's necessary, yes.

 

CADE:  I do.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  Given that it may be three a.m. and you may or may not be with us.  I read your e-mail.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.  It does affect the quality of participation, as well.

 

CADE:  Yes.  As opposed to the quantity, OK, I've got you.

 

STEVE (ph):  And therefore, as our proposed is – paren – is therefore proposed as consensus policy as opposed ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... to paren colon.

 

GUY:  A.

 

STEVE (ph):  And B, and C.

 

CADE:  Actually, let me take you to B and point something out that ...

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  ... I missed the first time.  A and B, yes.  But then, embedded in B, the last sentence says, further research by this task force and other appropriate body is needed to determine whether the benefits of this additional staff outweigh the potential cost.

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.  So that's not really in the same category as A is.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  Should that be moved down to – the thing is, because this all originally was one paragraph, we decided to keep the two ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... paragraphs next to each other.  But do you think it would be better to put it down into the Roman numeral four, and then refer back up to 3A?

 

CADE:  Maybe so.  I mean, I think this is actually something that we ought to be able to turn around very, very quickly in a next step, one way or the other.

 

But since we call for – we're saying we have consistent policy, we don't want to put something in it.

 

B is consideration of an interim step.

 

THOMAS (ph):  What do you mean by interim now?

 

CADE:  Remember Thomas (ph) we talked about, right now there are two steps, 50 (ph) ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Oh, OK.  Understood.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I wasn't sure if you meant interim procedurally or substantially.

 

CADE:  Right.  So I would ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, ...

 

CADE:  ... want – I would ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... do you think we should move this?

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  Yes.  And I would give it a short – if when we put timeframes on it, I mean, I think there's going to be – the second stage of low-hanging fruit, I hope this would be a decision one way or the other that this would be in that.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  Well, what I've done here is, I've taken out – I've cut that second paragraph.  So now A is when registrations are completed in the basis submission, et cetera.  B is registrant should be required to review and validate.  OK.  And then that's it for three.

 

THOMAS (ph):  The old B would now be moved ahead of 9A or below nine and ahead of A.

 

STEVE (ph):  It doesn't matter where – what – if you'd rather have it first ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Oh, OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... it doesn't matter ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  I don't care either.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So (INAUDIBLE) it would come right there.

 

STEVE (ph):  All right.

 

I just – because I just put it in the bottom of the document here.

 

CADE:  And what I'm going to say about cost is, the task force acknowledges that there may be costs for the registrars due to changes in system coding, et cetera.

 

STEVE (ph):  What I've done here on that paragraph that I moved down to four, is that I've added at the end of the first sentence where it says, for some period of time prior to the eventual deletion of the registrations, I've put, see item 3A above.  That's the one it used to be next to.  But we want to make sure people understand it's a part of the same – it's just a step in that same process.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  I've got it now as C under four, but I could move it up to A if you want.  But that's ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Actually, it may be better to move it up to A, I think, yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  No problem.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Actually, while we are at reordering things, why don't – wait a moment – why don't we just move the original 8C ahead of the original 3A, because that way the order of the steps remains the same.  We just get some headlines in between.  May make reading easier.

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes, that's fine with me.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  So now we, under four, that one becomes A.  The graduated sanctions becomes B.  The spot checking becomes C.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  And I can under the other one, renew on validation at the time of renewal, becomes A.  And the other one becomes B.

 

CADE:  And what I'm saying is, there may be cost to registrars from one of those, due to costs of system coding.  And there may be minimal costs associated with change and renewal forms.

 

OK?

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  OK.  So then under Roman four now we have three items.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  The first is, responses to the interim report indicate interest in placing registrations.  This is the appropriate hold status as it references to section 3A, which is – that should be 3B.  OK.  That's the first one.

 

Further research, et cetera, is needed to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs.  So there's a question of whether we want to suggest a timeframe there.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  B, graduate or (ph) the (ph) meaning (ph) of sanctions.  C, requirements spot check.

 

So, those are the three, but ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... we won't have timeframes on them.

 

CADE:  Yes.  So if we could do timeframes real quickly.  It would seem to me that – is there any reason, based on – just off the top of our heads – is there any reason to think that this task force would not be able to try to process most of this, maybe not all of it, but most of this within a three month period?  That would by March, by the time of the next meeting, which would be March, realizing that we also have other work in two other areas.

 

THOMAS (ph):  How about a little alternative to providing timeframes?  Let's add a section – priorities for further work.  The task force believes that the work as set out above should be handled in the following order.

 

And then say, OK, first thing, for instance is a hold (ph) period, because of the wave (ph) of this low-hanging fruit.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Second priority that, third priority that.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So we just say, OK, just to treat – low (ph) (INAUDIBLE) can be treated in this order.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Instead of saying it should be within three ...

 

CADE:  OK ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... months, maybe we come up with a ...

 

CADE:  ... OK ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... more urgent and back (ph) access.

 

CADE:  ... OK.  So, for instance, I would say, if the hold period were first, I think – and just to take it back to the 15 day, a three-step process might also be – I don't – I think that it would bear discussion to say whether the three-step process removed or ameliorated (ph) in any, for any reason, the need to change the 15 days.

 

I don't know that the task force will agree on that, but I'm just suggesting, those two things probably need to be talked about at the same time, because I think they're related to each other.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.  Certainly.  That's – it's a class of issues making the current RAA non-dangerous to apply.

 

CADE:  Right.  Then the other thing we – the other place we needed work, Steve (ph), was in two, in Roman two on commonly available automated mechanisms.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  And treating complaints.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  So that ...

 

STEVE (ph):  I think those would be short, relatively short-term items.

 

CADE:  And probably priority number two after that first one.  Right now that's what I'm thinking.  I mean, I ...

 

STEVE (ph):  And the first one – I'm sorry – the first one is the intermediate hold period?

 

CADE:  The intermediate hold period and the 15 days, together.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  Then, I mean ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Maybe we should include 3A in that also, in that second category.  We just need ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Give me the old numbering of that one, please?

 

STEVE (ph):  ... of reviewing – excuse me – that would be ...

 

CADE:  Eight A.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... just a second.  No, ...

 

CADE:  Eight – eight small "a."

 

STEVE (ph):  ... no, it's ...

 

CADE:  Oh, wait, we changed it.

 

STEVE (ph):  It think it's old 8C.

 

CADE:  Right.  Right, old 8C.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  Because if we're talking ...

 

CADE:  Yes, yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... basically the (ph) thing (ph) that involved talking with the registrars.  And if we talk with them about ...

 

CADE:  We're already recommending eight – old 8C as consensus policy.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.  But it's just the specifics of required validation remained to be determined.

 

THOMAS (ph):  From where – I'm sorry, Marilyn (ph), we are not suggesting a different (ph) convergence (ph) policy.  We are encouraging them.

 

CADE:  Yes.  Yes, yes, yes, yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  We removed it from the table (ph).

 

CADE:  Yes, yes.  OK, yes.  Steve (ph), I agree with that.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  While you guys are doing this, I could dial in and get – somebody was going to forward me Karen (ph)'s document.

 

I could hang up and dial in to get that document, and then dial back in.  And if Tony (ph) can chair in my absence.  Is that OK with everybody?  Because we're almost ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.  Are we concluded that the next priority stuff is the stuff in Roman four?

 

CADE:  I'm going to leave that ...

 

STEVE (ph):  (INAUDIBLE)?

 

CADE:  ... I'm going to leave that to all of you to decide.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  I'll be back in as soon as I get this document.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Steve (ph), one thing.  Most of us don't have the new numbers in front of ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  And in (ph) (INAUDIBLE) double (ph) way (ph) ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... to create (ph), so could you field (ph) one.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  Well, I guess my suggestion would be that – I think there are two items that we haven't prioritized.  And they are what in the old system were 9A and 9B.

 

And I guess I would say – I would want 9B ahead of 9A in terms of ...

 

TONY (ph):  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... priority.

 

THOMAS (ph):  In particular – actually, I think 9B is very closely tied to the, go to this entire (ph) automatic mechanism stuff, because ...

 

STEVE (ph):  I agree.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... if automatic mechanisms are killed, then they won't have any means ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... to reasonably implement 9A.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So 9A should be discussed together with automatic mechanisms, and 9B should go into the very end, as most likely being one of the more contentious things.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I'm sorry, 9B should go together with automatic mechanisms, the spot check.

 

STEVE (ph):  That's right.  Right.  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I just eight of (ph) them (ph) and B.

 

STEVE (ph):  All right.  Well, I'm just getting this down in terms of – well, I'll just – I'll just append this at the bottom of this document.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I'd just make it another section down there, something like Roman 10 or whatever we are at, priorities for further work.

 

I will leave for a short moment.  I'll return shortly.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

TONY (ph):  Hello.  Are we still on here?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.  We're – I'm just standing (ph) ...

 

TONY (ph):  Are we starting on Karen (ph) – are we talking (ph) this document?  Or are we ...

 

STEVE (ph):  As soon as Marilyn (ph) ...

 

TONY (ph):  ... are we waiting for Marilyn (ph) to come back.

 

STEVE (ph):  I think we're waiting for Marilyn (ph) to come back.

 

TONY (ph):  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  Although I guess we could start.

 

TONY (ph):  Sure.  I've got it in front of me.

 

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  We'll wait if you want.

 

STEVE (ph):  Is Karen (ph) still with us?

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes, I'm still here.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

TONY (ph):  Do you want to start running through it Steve (ph)?  Or shall we wait?

 

STEVE (ph):  Maybe Karen (ph) can just tell us if there are – I don't know if you've got, Karen (ph), got any comments on it, or anything like that?  Maybe you discussed this at the beginning of the call.

 

KAREN (ph):  No.  We didn't discuss it.  I don't think – I don't think I got any comments on it really.  The changes that made – there was like Thomas' (ph) comments from the last go-around, as well as what we discussed last – I think on Monday.

 

TONY (ph):  Are those the ones that you put in in blue?

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

TONY (ph):  Those are the changes.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

TONY (ph):  Should we take a look at those, Steve (ph)?  What do you think?

 

KAREN (ph):  I can walk you right through them.

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.

 

TONY (ph):  Yes, it would be great if you could ...

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

TONY (ph):  ... I mean we already documented before you made the changes.

 

KAREN (ph):  Sure.

 

TONY (ph):  So we are familiar with it I guess.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.  The highlighted bullet point in four.

 

TONY (ph):  Yes.  That's the first one I see.

 

KAREN (ph):  This is to reflect Thomas' (ph) comment that perhaps if there has been a violation of both access – able to access the agreement, that those people who breach should be ineligible from gaining future access.  But because we haven't had time to think about it, this is kind of a longer term objective.

 

TONY (ph):  It sounds a little complicated to implement.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.  And we can certainly reflect that in the comments.  But I think it's a concept worth even investigating.

 

I mean, at the end of the day we could decide that it's impossible to do that.  But I do think it's a worthy concept.

 

TONY (ph):  Right.  You're talking – sure.  This involves setting up a black list, though.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes, I suppose, right?

 

TONY (ph):  Right.

 

KAREN (ph):  The next thing I did was I deleted the sentence on page three that talks about the incompatibility of national laws with certain RAA provisions, because I think we all agreed that we had discussed that sufficiently, and this statement was sort of too over-reaching.

 

TONY (ph):  OK, I see you've struck that one out.

 

KAREN (ph):  Right.

 

TONY (ph):  OK.  Are you OK with that, Steve (ph)?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes, I apologize here.  Karen (ph), are you going through a document that you sent out today?

 

KAREN (ph):  No, this is a document that I sent out shortly after we discussed this.

 

STEVE (ph):  Oh, OK.  Fine.

 

KAREN (ph):  So it's – I called it WG4 revised 25/11/02.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK, I'm ...

 

TONY (ph):  Actually, Steve (ph), you replied to Karen (ph).

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes, I did.  OK, I'm ...

 

TONY (ph):  And you included your new document in the same mail.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right, I did.

 

TONY (ph):  That's probably why you have it under another title.

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.  I see it here.  Sorry.  Yes.  I think that's correct.  That's ...

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.  And then, at the bottom of that same page, we talked – we had talked about elimination of current VOL (ph) taxes (ph) provisions.

 

And this is Thomas' (ph) comment, that, you know, this concept of elimination is supported by some comments, and also by some task force members.  But the balance of the paragraph still says that we have not thought enough about that, and we've really focused on the modifications to the current RAA provisions.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I'm back.  Karen (ph), could you just give me thoughts on some coordinate of the document?  What page?

 

KAREN (ph):  We were just looking at page three – oh, sorry, page – yes, page three.

 

And I was saying that I put in your comment here that ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  ... elimination of bulk access has been supported by comments, as well as the task force.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  By (ph) some members of the task force.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  Fine.

 

KAREN (ph):  Next thing I just added Abel (ph), too, said something (ph) opinion.

 

I took out the brackets in the changed provision, just under that.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Which – I'm sorry, which one.  I don't see those change tracking (ph) here.

 

TONY (ph):  Do you see where it says dissenting opinion from Thomas Roseblum (ph)?  And Abel Wissman (ph)?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Karen (ph), if you could just say what text you have deleted.  I don't think deletions show up here.

 

KAREN (ph):  Do you have dissenting opinion from Thomas Rossweir (ph)?

 

THOMAS (ph):  (INAUDIBLE).

 

KAREN (ph):  And I added, and Abel Wiseman (ph)?

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  And the I took out, following general assembly, possibly others.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  Do you not see that?

 

TONY (ph):  Yes.  We've got that.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.  And then, let's see ...

 

TONY (ph):  We move down ...

 

KAREN (ph):  ... 3.3.6.3, there's some indented language.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

KAREN (ph):  And I just took out and any others, at the end of the indented language.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.

 

KAREN (ph):  And through 364, this is Thomas' (ph) language that clarifies the purpose of this provision.  And then on ...

 

TONY (ph):  That's right.  Yes, you put something in and struck out something that was there before.

 

KAREN (ph):  Right.  It was just, this sentence replaces the sentence that was there before, which clarifies that sentence.

 

TONY (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  And on page seven, I added a paragraph there that talks about the requirement of the minimum opt out policy, or the alternative opt in policy.  And the idea that, when adopting either, the registrant needs to be clearly notified that he or she has such an option.

 

TONY (ph):  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  Karen (ph), is the word requiring in that last line correct?  Because in an opt out situation, registrant doesn't have to respond.

 

Actually, in either situation the registrant doesn't have to respond.  But it has difference consequences.  So maybe it needs to say, acting upon a response from such registrant.  Because if the registrant opts out, then we'd have to implement that.

 

KAREN (ph):  So what are you proposing to change?

 

STEVE (ph):  Maybe change the word requiring to implementing.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think – actually I think Steve (ph)'s original length (ph) suggestion was better, and acting upon ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Acting upon?  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  And acting upon a response as when such registrant ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I have one question about all this.  How do we structure this when we present it?  Currently it just follows the – just follows the order of point of the RAA, that most (ph) define (ph).

 

However, they have a problem because of the multiplicate (ph) to 3.3.6, I think it was, yes, five, is part of what I call plan A.  The multiplication of 3.3.6.3, part of plan A.  But almost everything else is part of plan B.

 

I'm – I read the wrong (INAUDIBLE).  Now, I'm – actually we made, although we probably will do it – don't know – ah, I think it's not as bad as I thought.

 

We may just be fine by inserting an appropriate cap line in front of 3.3.6.6, which points out that this A is, and B, and everything else is our main recommendation.

 

Yes.

 

And probably, I think there's one more change we should do, and that is to insert something like a brief abstract of what we are actually suggesting, just behind suggested revisions to the RAA bulk access provisions.  Just to say, so past versus primary recommendation is to prohibit any marketing activities based on black access in 3.3.6.3, and the replacement made by a shell and 3.3.6.5, period.  An alternative – the task force suggests stronger privacy protection they can move on to be implemented, and 3.3.6.6.

 

Most likely it'll sort of even be at a less preferred alternative.  So people have some orientation when reading, just because otherwise, I'd be afraid that people don't get what happens in what case.

 

KAREN (ph):  Do you want a summary before we start talking about these in length of what we're suggesting for each provision?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.  I would like to put the summary just at the top, just below the headline, suggested revisions to the RAA add big (ph) (INAUDIBLE) of provisions.

 

You should put in there a paragraph there which says, the task force's recommendation is to prohibit any marketing use of bulk (ph) data, but it changed to 3.3.6.3.

 

And to remove – and to make – so a bulk (ph) access agreement provision described in 3.3.6.5, mandatory as opposed to optional, period.

 

If the change to 3.3.6.3 cannot be implemented, the task force's less preferred alternative is the strengthen the protection of registrants from marketing users of their data by removing – by – I (ph) got (ph) mail (ph) – by changing 3.3.6.6.

 

OK.  And probably we should also say that 3.3.6.6 could go away if the change to 3.3.6.3 is adopted.

 

MARILYN:  It's Marilyn (ph), and I'm listening to this.  Is that right?  Do we think that it could go away if that change is adopted?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, if you are saying, you shall not use it for marketing, then we don't need to give people an opt out of that.

 

CADE:  Ah.  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  I think this other question there was, what's the line of (INAUDIBLE) tax (ph).

 

I suppose it's Karen (ph) whom we hear typing?

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK, I just ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  So it's appropriate to wait.

 

KAREN (ph):  I just finished this paragraph.  And let's see if you guys agree.

 

The task force's primary recommendation is to prohibit any marketing use of bulk data by accepting the revisions in subsection 3.3.6.3.

 

In addition, the task force recommends requiring third parties not to resell or redistribute data, in accordance with our recommendation in 3.3.6.5.

 

If the ICANN board does not agree with the task force's recommendation relating to the elimination of marketing uses of bulk access data, then the task force recommends strengthening the protection of privacy of individuals by requiring a minimum opt out policy unless an opt-in policy is otherwise required.

 

THOMAS (ph):  This is – unless it is otherwise required?

 

CADE:  So, the task force is recommending a minimum of an opt-out policy.  Right, Karen (ph)?

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  But we are saying – I'm sorry.  This is just (ph) kind of a question.  But there may be instances where an opt-in could be required like for instance in dot name or – I'm just trying to think about what the – or it could be required by national law ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  ... is that – OK.  I see where we're going with this.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I'm sorry.  I have – wait a moment – I think that's the text we have below 3.3.6.6 says – somewhere, I just don't find it right now – now that registrars should have the choice to offer opt-out or opt-in as far as ICANN is concerned.  And so that they can comply with national law if it requires opt-in.

 

CADE:  Correct.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  So, I would – could you please just read the last couple of words of the summary again?  I think it talks about opt-in, we are required.

 

KAREN (ph):  Oh, I can change it as opt-in where applicable ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Where ...

 

KAREN (ph):  ... which is to (ph) say – at the bottom.

 

STEVE (ph):  I think the situation we talked about was where they had determined that a law was applicable to their operations ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... that required opt-in.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  Even though ...

 

CADE:  Could I ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  No, I'm sorry.  That's not what the text says.

 

CADE:  Guys, guys.  I need to ask a question.  I heard from Roger Cochetti this morning, and I've heard it from him before, Karen (ph), that 20 countries have onerous laws that are affecting registries that are in conflict with the RAA.

 

I'm not aware of that, although I am aware that there may be laws in certain European countries that maybe determine to be applicable, although they have not been yet.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes, I think that's right.  I think the issue is that, is that European member states may be required to implement opt-in in order to – in order to, you know, subject their data subjects to marketing.

 

CADE:  But so we're talking about generally opt in.  It's just – the question is whether it would be determined to be applicable as (ph) it (ph) is (ph).  But in general, that may be what they're required to implement, broadly, for all direct leads (ph), et cetera.

 

KAREN (ph):  That's what I think.

 

CADE:  Yes.  That's my understanding of the law.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Wait a moment.  Now, what precisely does the summary say.  I'm sorry, I sound like a broken record, but I think we have ...

 

KAREN (ph):  The summary says, if the ICANN board does not agree with the task force's recommendation relating to the elimination of marketing uses of bulk access data, then the task force recommends strengthening the protection of privacy of individuals by requiring a minimum opt-out policy in subsection 3.3.6.3, unless an opt-in policy is otherwise required.

 

Now, it can change that to reflect the actual language in the body of the document.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes, ...

 

CADE:  You guys, I don't ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... that would be great.

 

CADE:  ... I don't – yes, Thomas (ph), but somebody – no, Brett – here, never mind I found it …

 

THOMAS (ph):  Marilyn (ph), I'm sorry.  Just a short thing.  Karen (ph), it's 3.3.6.6, not three.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes, I'm sorry.  I missed those.  That's what it says, right, right, right.

 

So, now it says, minimum opt-out policy in subsection 3.3.6.6, unless an opt-in policy is otherwise required by national laws determined to be applicable to an ICANN contracting party.

 

THOMAS (ph):  That does not mirror the language of the body of what it's in (INAUDIBLE) ...

 

KAREN (ph):  I just cut and pasted it.

 

THOMAS (ph):  You cut and pasted it from a bracket which has the words in particular in front of it.

 

KAREN (ph):  Hold on.  Hold on.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I'm sorry.  I see it.  It is, and comprising (ph) such a minimum requirement should not preclude any rate (ph) applier (ph) from implementing a more stringent opt-in policy.  Opening bracket.  In particular, if such a policy is required, et cetera.

 

KAREN (ph):  Right.  So that's what I copied.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So it's what an example of it would not prevent registrars without national law constrained from implementing an opt-in policy ...

 

KAREN (ph):  OK, Thomas (ph).  Tell me what you want me to write, because I don't want to be guessing.

 

THOMAS (ph):  An opt-out or – I think it should – wait a minute – just the last few words before opt-in, not the entire sentence, please, Karen (ph).

 

KAREN (ph):  Recommend strengthening of protection of privacy of individuals by requiring a minimum opt-out policy in 3.3.6.6, and ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  And giving registrars discretion to introduce an opt-in policy.

 

CADE:  Giving registrars discretion?

 

THOMAS (ph):  To introduce an opt-in policy.  They can do – they must ...

 

TONY (ph):  No (ph).

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... do (ph) opt-out ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... and they may do opt ...

 

TONY (ph):  Is it ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... if they want.

 

TONY (ph):  Yes, and that gives them, if required, the right to do so anyway.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes, exactly.

 

CADE:  I ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, I think the focus of what – well, is the top – well, I'm just not clear on what the policy is that we're recommending.  We're saying that everybody – the minimum is that they have to offer opt-out.  If they have a legal constraint that requires them to offer an opt-in, they can do that.

 

You know, you're saying that the – Thomas (ph), are you suggesting that the policy really is, we don't care whether you have opt-in or opt-out?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.  But what the text has been saying for, I think, two weeks now.

 

CADE:  We have to have one.  So, you – right?  You ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Right.  You have to have at least an opt-out.

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, I'm ...

 

CADE:  Are you ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... hopeful that this is all a moot point, because we will get rid of marketing uses.

KAREN (ph):  I think we're all agreed on that.

 

THOMAS (ph):  A great agreement on that, so ...

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.  So that what it drafts (ph) now ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  You have another – you have another really strong argument to object to not implementing our primary policy, Steve (ph).

 

STEVE (ph):  Pardon me?

 

THOMAS (ph):  I said ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes, that's right.  That's right.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.  Anything else?

 

THOMAS (ph):  I hope I don't get my head chopped off, but I think we forgot to mention one real (ph) issue.  And that is, according to that e-mail from Louie Tuton (ph), which I forwarded I think a week, from therefore (ph) up to a week ago.

 

The RAA does not at risk (ph) side (ph) prevent registrars from making bank (ph) data available.  It was – I think Steve (ph) and I had an earlier discussion on one of the conference calls what bank (ph) access means.

 

And as far as I understand Louis’s e-mail, and RAA only says, registrars must inform registrants on what is going to happen by the data, and must stick to the promises in the privacy policies.  But it does not generally prevent them from making bank (ph) data available.

 

So, by – and it would remove marketing.  We may end up in a situation in which registrars may make available bank (ph) data for marketing purposes, under conditions different from the bank (ph) access agreement.

 

CADE:  Yes, that's something that we ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  One – one, informing the registrants about it.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I don't think we can come up – can at this point of time come up with an appropriate policy on that.  But I do think that this should be one of the priority items to be handled.

 

CADE:  Thomas (ph), I actually think that the task force already considered, and I thought we actually had said, no marketing research (ph) of the LIZ (ph).

 

Because I agree with you.  Right now registrars could do a private deal and sell access for marketing purposes to the data.

 

I thought we had agreed that the task force's recommendation was no marketing uses of the who (ph) is (ph) data.

 

STEVE (ph):  I think it was no marketing uses of the bulk access data, which – I mean, my – I think I said this before.

 

So, one thing that this agreement lacks is a definition of bulk access.  So, ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... it's not totally clear what these rules apply to.  I think ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Steve (ph), these rules apply – what we are currently doing is suggesting a mandatory clause in registrars bank (ph) access agreement.  We don't prohibit registrars from making who (ph) is (ph) data available under whatever different agreements they may come up with.

 

CADE:  But, Thomas (ph), I think we want to.  But that's what I think you're pointing out.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  I think we ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  We certainly want to.  I'm just wondering how we do this, how we get the start (ph) ...

 

CADE:  OK.  Well, wait a minute.  Go back here.  We have said that there has to be opt-in minimums for bulk access.  I thought we opt out or opt in, right.

 

I thought we had agreement – and I'm sorry I missed this before – I thought we had had agreement from the beginning, including in our various statements of the task force believe that they had detected (ph) objectives, both in the survey and otherwise, for marketing research of (INAUDIBLE) this data.

 

Now, and obviously, many of them have complained to us that point (ph) 43 allows data mining of who (ph) is (ph) data, that they don't support otherwise, as well.

 

But I do think we should – I think we have agreement that we don't believe that who (ph) is (ph) data should be used for marketing purposes.

 

STEVE (ph):  Well, I think the agreement extends to – I mean, I think the only thing we've been talking about was bulk access data.

 

Now, I'm not trying to split a hair here, ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... but let me just take a clear example.  If I, you know, I go visit somebody's Web site, see, I can say we'd be interested in a product or service that I have, you know.  Maybe they might be interested in my legal services, and let's leave aside whether I'm allowed to advertise or solicit for clients.

 

I could go to who (ph) is (ph), look up who they are, and send them my brochure.

 

Now, that's a marketing purpose of who (ph) is (ph) data.  Is that what we're talking about?  Or are we talking about when I ...

 

CADE:  Data mine.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... data mine and I take the whole database and ...

 

CADE:  Yes, ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... run it against certain categories, or a substantial part of it.

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  That's clearly – I think that's the area.  Now, ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... that – that's what I understand by bulk access.

 

TONY (ph):  Yes, I think we – I think, in all honesty, is I may, too – I think that's the part where we should concentrate on.  Because if we go too much in detail, or too much, too deep into various who (ph) is (ph) data or not, we can with great difficulty prevent any registrar to sell their database to anybody they want.

 

I mean, this is not who (ph) is (ph) data access.  This is their database.

 

CADE:  Well, ...

 

TONY (ph):  Who (ph) is (ph) is a way of making it publicly available, that's all.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So, probably, so I think what it should ...

 

CADE:  Wait, wait, wait.  Let me go back to Steve (ph).  I think what Steve (ph) is supposing – Steve (ph), I think there maybe used to be an actual definition for bulk access, because there's a provision about bulk access.

 

I think we're still proposing that the task force is supposing a somewhat expanded definition of bulk access.

 

STEVE (ph):  I think that's right.  I think we're saying, whenever ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... substantially all the database is made available, these things should apply.

 

But I'm not sure that the agreement – I think the agreement doesn't necessarily mean that today.  And I think I understand Louie's (ph) opinion, which I haven't looked at lately.  I think he's saying, yes, if you would – they could make it available, in other words.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So, actually, I don't think that we will get to any solution.  Part of the problem this week, and that's the timeframe we are in now.

 

So what I would propose is that we mark – that we add in four as a part (ph) first (ph) makes additional – well, it's not even medium – a medium term to long term recommendation.

 

I think in that section we should add something which basically says that the suggestions by the task force currently only cover access to – with data under the bulk access agreement.

 

To the extent to which registrars may make their customer database available to third parties, without entering into a bulk access agreement as defined in the RAA, proof (ph) of safeguards against marketing uses may be necessary.

 

I think that we should mark that as a top priority for future work.  Besides getting legitimate users under, into the hood (ph).

 

CADE:  OK.  So we would have the discussions, legitimate and also just further discussions of – OK.  I'm happy with that.  And as I recall – I will tell you guys, we had long and arduous conversations about this very issue about four years ago at the time of the original drafting – or five years ago, whatever it was.

 

Maybe we know more now.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Karen (ph), did you capture the language?  Or ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Sorry.  Could someone just recapture it for me?

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  I will try to.  On page – wait a moment – page two ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  No, I'm actually wondering where we have to put it in.  Maybe somebody can come up with that.

 

We can either put it in front of four, making it an extra priority, or just put it as the first item in 04 (ph).  I don't have any particular preference about that, so I'll leave it to you, Karen (ph).

 

And then we would say, the task force is – I'm sorry, no.  No, no, no.

 

The task force's recommendations on providing marketing use of bulk access who (ph) is (ph) data are currently implemented as a mandatory – or are supposed to be implemented, or something like that – as a mandatory clause in registrars' bulk access agreement.

 

KAREN (ph):  In their RAA?

 

THOMAS (ph):  As defined – yes – as defined in 3.3.6.1 of the RAA, I think.  Yes.

 

To the extent to which registrars may make their customer database available to third parties – OK, this won't be perfect – without the third parties – how do we build that sentence – without a – I'm, OK, I'll just say it roughly ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Without being subject to the ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... and leave it to you to put it into proper English, Karen (ph).

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  To the extent to which they make it available, basically bypassing the bulk access agreement.  So, by private means, or by means not – yes – to the extent to which registrars make their customer database available to third parties, ...

 

KAREN (ph):  I just said here, without regard for the bulk access provisions ...

 

CADE:  (INAUDIBLE) ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Great.

 

CADE:  Now wait a minute, Thomas (ph).  It's not their customer list, because we actually are not in a position of dictating what they do with the customer list.  But we can conference (ph), what we can comment on is what they do with their part of the who (ph) is (ph) list.

 

THOMAS (ph):  As far as a registrar business is concerned, I think it's very much the same thing.

 

CADE:  No, it's not.  It's not.  They – that's the weird thing.  Many of them maintain a separate billing list ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  ... where they have accurate data.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  So replace it by who (ph) is (ph) data.

 

OK.  I lost the beginning of the sentence.

 

CADE:  To the extent that they ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Karen (ph), could you just reread that half sentence?

 

KAREN (ph):  All right.  To the extent registrars make their part of the who (ph) is (ph) database available to third parties, without regard for the bulk access provision, ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Additional safeguards against marketing and other inappropriate uses may be necessary.

 

KAREN (ph):  Should I say, should be considered.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

And some of the safeguards, I think I said additional or replaced that by separate ...

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  By other inappropriate uses I mean things like the high volume processes, which aren't actually covered anywhere except in the who (ph) is (ph) provisions.  It's not just marketing.  Just to make that clear.

 

OK.  I think that is it.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  Karen (ph), could you read back what you have?

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.  I'm not sure I captured it properly, but, the task force's recommendations on marketing uses of bulk access to who (ph) is (ph) data are currently – see, I don't think this first sentence makes sense, but I'll read it anyway.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

KAREN (ph):  The task force's recommendations on marketing uses of bulk access to who (ph) is (ph) data are currently implemented as a mandatory clause in registrars' bulk access agreement as defined in 3.3.6.1 of the RAA.

 

To the extent that registrars make their part of the who (ph) is (ph) database available to third parties, without regard for the bulk access provisions, separate safeguards against marketing and other inappropriate uses should be considered.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  The first (ph) sentence, the thing which doesn't make sense is that we talk about bulk (ph) access in the first place where it occurs.  I think it should just be bulk who (ph) is (ph) data.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Or the bulk of who (ph) is (ph) data, or something like that, or the who (ph) is (ph) database.

 

I think the who (ph) is (ph) database makes more sense at that point.

 

KAREN (ph):  But it's still – the task force's recommendations on marketing uses of bulk who (ph) is (ph) data are currently implemented as a mandatory clause in the registrars' bulk access agreement, as defined in 3.3.6.1.

 

Do we want to say that the recommendations focus on marketing uses, as they are currently implemented, pursuant to the mandatory clause, or something like that.

 

Isn't that what we're saying?  We're saying that we're focusing on the current, the status quo.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think that as soon as we are starting to further restrict bulk access by coming to a definition on legitimate uses or something like that.

 

Registrars may have a stronger incentive to sell who (ph) is (ph) data at what I would call market prices for other uses.  So I don't think that this loophole will go away quickly.  And I don't actually think that registrars will give their consent to removing the loophole completely.

 

So what we are actually doing or suggesting in this recommendation is to put in place minimum safeguards for access provided by registrars under their own terms.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  And maximum safeguards for access provided under M-ICANN mandate.

 

So, I think it's not just the implementation, but it's a fundamental problem.

 

KAREN (ph):  I don't think we're disagreeing.  I think – I just – I still don't think that the sentence ...

 

CADE:  Yes, reread it again, because I'm having trouble with the language, as opposed to ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  ... I'm not disagreeing with that ...

 

KAREN (ph):  The task force's recommendations on marketing uses of bulk who (ph) is (ph) data are currently implemented as a mandatory clause in registrars' bulk access agreement, as defined in 3.3.6.1 of the RAA.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  It isn't currently implemented ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Do we mean it's ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... but won't (ph) be implemented ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... you mean that it refers to?

 

KAREN (ph):  That's what I think.  I think ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Is that what that refers to?

 

KAREN (ph):  We're saying that the – we're making recommendations ...

 

CADE:  Which would be implemented through changes in – right?  We're making recommendations which would be implemented through changes in the registrar bulk access agreement.

 

But then we have to go back to whether that's actually broad enough.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  So, the – maybe it's the proposed task force recommendations?  Or the task force proposed recommendations on marketing on bulk access would be – would require implementation through changes in the registrars' bulk access agreement.

 

And then we need a note there about the definition of what we mean by bulk access, that refers back to Steve (ph)'s comment.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.  Does this make sense?  The task force's proposed recommendations on marketing uses of bulk who (ph) is (ph) data would be implemented as changes to the mandatory clause in registrars' bulk access agreement, as defined in 3.3.6.1 of the RAA.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I would say move the words to a – the words a mandatory clause in this case.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  A mandatory clause of ...

 

KAREN (ph):  To ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... the bulk access agreement should be the text now, right?

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.  So, as changes to the registrars' bulk access agreement as defined in 3.3.6.1 of the RAA.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  And the second sentence is ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Sorry, the second sentence is, to the extent that registrars make their part of the who (ph) is (ph) database available to third parties without regard for the bulk access provisions, separate safeguards against marketing and other inappropriate uses should be considered.

 

STEVE (ph):  Can we say available in bulk?

 

CADE:  Ah, available in bulk.

 

KAREN (ph):  Available in bulk to third parties.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  And then, Steve (ph), we could define what we mean by that?

 

STEVE (ph):  We could.

 

CADE:  Wouldn't it – no, I mean ...

 

STEVE (ph):  All I'm thinking – I'm just trying to draw – I just don't want somebody looking at this and saying, oh, this applies to query-based who (ph) is (ph).

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  And I'm comfortable that query-based who (ph) is (ph) is not being made available in bulk.  You know, it's not defined, but it hasn't been defined for three years.  So, I mean, I – perhaps we want to say – but I don't think this group here can add this – that one of our recommendations – maybe it can be said orally – one of our recommendations maybe ought to be that the term bulk access ought to be defined ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... in the agreement, which it's not.

 

CADE:  Ought to be defined in the agreement, ...

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

CADE:  ... and then put it on the low-hanging fruit to do.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.  But I don't think it'll be hard to define it, but ...

 

CADE:  That sounds reasonable to me.  Thomas (ph)?

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think – wait a moment, what (INAUDIBLE) do you think sounds reasonable?  Karen's (ph) proposed wording?  Or (ph) the option to define bulk access?

 

CADE:  No (ph).

 

STEVE (ph):  You have to be worried when something I say sounds reasonable.

 

CADE:  I thought those (ph) sounded reasonable.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I'm pretty much fine with Karen's (ph) wording, but I'm still not sure we really need to define bulk access.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  I'm ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think ...

 

STEVE (ph):  ... I'm not sure we can add it in here at this point anyway.  But I'm ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think that, actually, the distinction is really bulk (ph) access.  And maybe in capital letters or something like that, meaning 3.3.6 of the RAA and access in bulk meaning everything else.

 

CADE:  But I do think that we need to come back – I'm not saying we need to define it in this document, but that we need to say – there's needs to be an agreed upon definition.

 

Because I do think registrars would be surprised to find – and look, I'll just be explicit about what shocked my company.  We were shocked when a registrar data mined their own lists and sold a list of five million names.  We did not understand that that was doable.  That was not a bulk access.

 

But that shocked us.  We did not – we would not have – we would have opted out, and we didn't do that, because we didn't know that was possible.

 

THOMAS (ph):  But actually I've known even things that under the current RAA it would have been possible or (ph) not (ph).

 

CADE:  Yes.  It happened under the current RAA.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes, but I don't think that your opt-out would have been possible under ...

 

CADE:  Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... or mandated, I'm sorry, or anything like that.

 

CADE:  But what I'm just saying is, I do think that there is a problem with not defining it.

 

We don't – we can't do it in this document, but I think we need to ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.  Are we done?  I've posted what the reorganization of the accuracy section ...

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... which I think is done except for adding in these cost issues.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think we have one more work item on part four.  And that's the prioritization of further work.

 

Just like you last (ph) ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... powered (ph) to the accuracy chapter.

 

CADE:  Well I would say, this definition needs to go under the prioritization.  And we had one earlier that we thought was low-hanging fruit.  Does anybody remember that?

 

THOMAS (ph):  The part that's – the newly added – wait a moment.

 

Actually, I think the first things we should look at with – I'll do it that way – with respect to bulk access are the item we just added.  And the question about terminating bulk access licenses.

 

I think these two are relatively low-hanging, and will have to be done in any event, however we come out with legitimate use.

 

The only thing we may wish to move ahead of (ph) is whether or not bulk access should be eliminated.  But the reason I'm proposing to move ahead the termination and the non-bulk access, access in bulk, is (INAUDIBLE) there are certain (ph) reasons.

 

That first of all, the (ph) power (ph) is limited (ph) (INAUDIBLE) is four, what I would call unregulated access in bulk are concerned.  This is a work (ph) part (ph) which would easily remain (ph) entire (ph) by a (INAUDIBLE) access agreement.  But the notion of a bulk access agreement of a country stand (ph) would be removed.

 

And the other question was licensed (ph) users (ph).  It sounds like something could be done quickly, and should be implemented quickly, even for the time it may take us to discuss whether or not it should be fully eliminated, and something like that.

 

So I think, first thing would be safeguards for unregulated access in bulk – what we added just now.  Second thing should be termination of licensees – of licenses – and permit (ph) license fees (ph) in an appropriate sense.

 

Then we should – would most likely have to – well, actually, look up several things at once, because they're interrelated, and that's Brett's (ph) question, whether bulk access provisions should be removed or not?  What legitimate uses there are and how they should be handled.  What kind of national laws we have.

 

So these would form a block to me.  The review (ph), something which also contributes to that.  I think it's a whole mass of issues which are interrelated and hard to prioritize in any reasonable way.

 

KAREN (ph):  You know what I'll do is, after the second point, which is now terminations of licenses, ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Right.

 

KAREN (ph):  ... I'm going to create one bullet that says, the following three points should be considered kind of together.  What is a legitimate use?  What is – you know, weighs legitimate uses against privacy interests.  And finally, the impact of national privacy and other laws.

 

So it'd be – so those are the next three bullet points I'm going to kind of pool together.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Wait a moment.  Where did you put the, what is currently the last one, in its further review should both (ph) reconsider?  To take up (ph) on M (ph) or not?

 

KAREN (ph):  In its further review – I had not moved that one yet.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I would move – actually, I think I would move that one up as the first one of this group of now to be four, ...

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... because it's a fundamental question around which all the other ones actually circle in some manner.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  And then the last thing, on the top level of follow (ph) points would be if marketing uses continue to be permitted.  And I think that's fine.

 

KAREN (ph):  Great.  Bye.

 

OK, so we got the four together.  Then we have – where does this actual experiences of registrars go?

 

CADE:  So we basically want to say that we'd like to better understand the experience that registrars are having.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Isn't that part of this overall consideration?  I think it basically in the end it says that it's thrown (ph) out in, for elimination and drastic reforms.  So it belongs under that group.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

KAREN (ph):  And the marketing uses of bulk access continue to be permitted as, and required opt-out minimum standard.  That's standalone.

 

THOMAS (ph):  That would be standalone and hopefully moot.

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.  And that's last.  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  I hope we are done four (ph) with that.

 

Marilyn (ph)?

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Still there?

 

CADE:  Yes, I'm here.

 

THOMAS (ph):  What's the editorial preface for the final report going to look like?

 

CADE:  Well, if these two sections are finalized, right, then this is where the policy recommendations are.  The – I need to write, to rewrite the executive summary, and which I hope to do either tonight or tomorrow morning, because that's about the only time I have to do it.

 

And then we need to attach the various other sections.  The biggest other question, Mark, that I think there has to be a concern about, is the supporting documentation.

 

And what we need is – right now I think we need to kind of get all the pieces glued together even with placeholders, so that we can – and I need to take a poll.  I'm going to be off-line Friday from probably around – well, I leave at 11, I get on a plane and I don't get into D.C. until around eight o'clock at night.

 

Are people going to be able to look at something on Saturday morning?

 

STEVE (ph):  I'm basically going to be off-line from now through Monday morning.

 

CADE:  I don't see any changes, Steve (ph), happening in the two policy sections.

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.  No, I agree.  And I'm just – unfortunately, I won't have a chance to read it ...

 

CADE:  All right.  I mean, it seems to me that the only thing that people, that there'll be – I need to use what Thomas (ph) has done and to keep going through this, put the cost section together.

 

We don't have comments from the – well, where we have constituency reports, they need to be referenced in two places.  One is in the documentation, Thomas (ph), that you've kind of put together.

 

THOMAS (ph):  You mean the summary of comments?

 

CADE:  Yes, the summary of comments.  And then we also need to – I need to attach those into the constituency report section where we have constituency reports.

 

THOMAS (ph):  What constitutes a constituency report?  A document which says, hello, I am a constituency position, likely GIT-TELECOM (ph) ...

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... registries come in.

 

CADE:  Right.  And so far, that's the only one we have, I think, that actually says it's a constituency ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Call (ph) the IPC.

 

CADE:   Oh, the IPC in that one.  That's right.  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  But it's basically the only thing we have.

 

KAREN (ph):  Marilyn (ph), when do you want constituency statements by?  Because I know this morning you said you'd like comments on the latest draft, is that right?

 

CADE:  Yes.  I think, you know, I think we need to post, leave that open.  And then, the constituency statements will need to be added in.  And I think we probably need to give the constituencies a period of time to turn this around, realizing that they need to be there for the names council to see.

 

But we can't ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Aha.

 

CADE:  ... we have to go ahead and post this without those constituency statements.

 

KAREN (ph):  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So, constituency statements are supposed to be constituency statements on the final ...

 

CADE:  That's right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... state of – ah.  OK.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Didn't get that so far.

 

CADE:  Right.  Right.  Sorry.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Didn't have to file one until now, so weren't any constituency report at this point.

 

CADE:  But it doesn't seem to me, I mean, you know, we – so far we have comments on a draft.  Now we have a final recommendation.  And the constituency statements need to be on that final recommendation.

 

We post on the 30th.  It would seem to me feasible to say, we have to have – maybe give people until the 9th?  That would be essentially a week – that's Monday – to get constituency statements.  Does that seem long enough?

 

STEVE (ph):  Are these constituency statements on the final report or on the interim?

 

CADE:  On the final report.

 

STEVE (ph):  No, I thought we were under pressure to have the constituency statements on the interim.

 

CADE:  Well, we've gotten any we're going to ...

 

STEVE (ph):  We've got – any – OK, those that we're going to get.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

STEVE (ph):  All right.  But ...

 

CADE:  We've gotten all we're going to get.

 

STEVE (ph):  Is it at the point now that the representatives of the constituency should be taking whatever consultation they need to take with their ...

 

CADE:  Exactly.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... other (ph) folks, and they should be prepared to approve or whatever ...

 

CADE:  Exactly.

 

STEVE (ph):  ... the report.  OK.

 

CADE:  Exactly.

 

STEVE (ph):  But there's no need for constituencies to file another set of public comments.

 

CADE:  No, but you probably want to say something that we can wave in our hands that – at the – for the names council, realizing that it does need to be attached to the names council decision and go forward to the board.

 

So you do probably need a short statement of ...

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  ... what is a constituency statement.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  So, just thinking out loud here, maybe it would be a good idea to try to – well, I don't know.  Forget it.  You Americans are talking a week – a long weekend off, so this doesn't make sense.

 

Wasn't even about past present – something that we – but I think that's going to be ruled out.

 

CADE:  Yes.  So if we gave the constituencies until the 9th, close of business the 9th, that just gives us the 10th and 11th.  I get on a plane the night of the 12th.

 

And I also think – the advice I've given the – we need to look at this and see, Steve (ph), if we need a resolution for the names council to vote on.

 

STEVE (ph):  OK.

 

CADE:  Because, in the past, that's what we're doing in the transfers task force, because the report is very different than our report.  It's very voluminous.  It has a lot of editorial suggestions that are there to be referred to during implementation, but are not suggested to be a part of the policy recommendation.

 

So, we will be doing, in the transfers task force, a resolution that just has an attachment that has the specific recommendation.

 

We probably ought to think about a language for a resolution for the who (ph) is (ph) task force, as well.

 

STEVE (ph):  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Actually, I'm – just to – just one question.  When should we expect a first draft of the preliminary (ph) report from you, Marilyn (ph)?

 

CADE:  Well, let me ask for some help here.  I could use some help gluing things together.  And my editor's offered (ph) herself, but – and says she can help some.  But Thomas (ph), could you and Kristy help on gluing things together?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, I think so.

 

CADE:  If you could, then we could all be – I could send you the – we could – we need to take the sections, go ahead and do a – and what you can take from the executive – take from the interim report, put a table of contents together.  And then let's see what we need to change in the heading.

 

But this, it seems to me, we'd have the executive summary.  We'd have the terms of reference in this, which are very brief.  And then we would have this section as the recommendations section.  And it would be a standalone that could be pulled out and attached to a resolution.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, a recommendation section.

 

CADE:  Right.  Steve (ph), is that – Steve (ph)?

 

STEVE (ph):  Yes.  Yes, presumably the resolution would just, would have the recommendations.

 

CADE:  And so this, so we have just a recommendations section.  Then we would have supporting arguments, which have to come behind that.

 

THOMAS (ph):  What does that mean?  I mean, we can't have mixed (ph) arguments and decisions.  And I don't think it makes sense to – and recommendations, I'm sorry – and I don't think it makes sense to separate them.

 

STEVE (ph):  I'm going to have to drop off here.

 

CADE:  OK.

 

STEVE (ph):  And since you guys are the movers (ph) and shakers from this point.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Op-eds (ph), yes.

 

STEVE (ph):  Talk to you, talk to you next week.

 

CADE:  Laurenz (ph)?

 

KAREN (ph):  I actually have to drop off, as well.

 

CADE:  OK.  Karen (ph), are you going to be online again?

 

KAREN (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  OK.  And what about Laurenz (ph)?

 

THOMAS (ph):  Laurenz (ph) just dropped off.

 

CADE:  OK, maybe we can get her ...

 

KAREN (ph):  Thanks, guys.

 

CADE:  Thanks, Karen (ph).  So, ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Marilyn (ph), let's continue this via e-mail, OK?  I think – don't think anyone's still left.

 

CADE:  OK.  If you could just take a look at the table of contents that's in the interim report, ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Sure.

 

CADE:  ... and then we can edit that.  When I say supporting arguments, what I mean by that is, we need our documentation.  And then we need to figure out what the major objections were we received, and whether we address them or not.  And that's something I think you and I and Christie (ph) can write by e-mail.

 

So it's like, we received concerns about the 15 days.  We addressed them in the following way.  Just real succinctly, not in any detail, but – I mean, not going argument by argument, but just to say, what were the major concerns we received, and did we take them into account.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think that's all you have really even identified, most of the concerns in the wider (ph) full text.

 

CADE:  Right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So it can most likely to short.

 

CADE:  OK.  OK.  And then I need to do the cost section.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes.

 

CADE:  And I'm trying – and then we need the links to – which I will ask Glen (ph) if she could start – did you want me to ask Glen (ph) if she can start developing the links to the archives and to the input that we took?

 

THOMAS (ph):  To the comments?

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes, Marilyn (ph), I'm here.

 

CADE:  Yes, I was just – I was just thinking, Thomas (ph), that we need links to the previous presentations that we made.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Oh, OK, OK.

 

GLEN (ph):  Could you please send me the presentations that you made in Shanghai?

 

CADE:  I can when I get back.

 

GLEN (ph):  Oh, not before then?  Thomas (ph), have you perhaps got then?

 

THOMAS (ph):  (INAUDIBLE)

 

CADE:  Well, Glen (ph), Glen (ph), you have them.  You had them up on the comment, remember?  You had the Power Point and the interim report.

 

GLEN (ph):  Were they on the Web site?

 

CADE:  Yes.  Yes.

 

GLEN (ph):  That you made in Shanghai.

 

CADE:  Yes.

 

GLEN (ph):  OK.  You say, they look (ph) fine (ph).

 

CADE:  Yes.  So I was just thinking that, Thomas (ph), that Glen (ph) ought to do just a section which has those links to the previous ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Yes, ...

 

CADE:  ... presentations and reports we've ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  And where do we put the public comments received?

 

CADE:  I think that goes in – I don't have the interim report in front of me, but we have a, we have a section that's, that is probably entitled – and maybe we want to change it to say outreach and public comments?

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  Marilyn (ph), actually I think we ought to do this with all the documents in front of us.

 

CADE:  I can do it – I can work on it tomorrow.

 

THOMAS (ph):  No, I mean, we have to do this discussion most likely better via e-mail.

 

CADE:  OK.  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Just with the documents in front of us.  And, quite frankly, with me being less exhausted.  It's half past eight p.m. here.

 

CADE:  I got it.  How about then we work on this tomorrow, Glen (ph).  Are you available tomorrow?

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes.  I'm available tomorrow.  What I'd like you please to do is to give me this document in HTML, because, if it comes in Word, there is no way it can go on Saturday, because the whole thing has to be converted.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  Will do.

 

GLEN (ph):  Can you do that Thomas (ph)?

 

THOMAS (ph):  I can make it come up and under I think.

 

GLEN (ph):  Oh, thank you so much.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Also I have a quite good I-SCREAM (ph) generator, and I'm developing some exercises in 16 format quickly.

 

GLEN (ph):  Oh, good.  Because to get it into a proper form takes ...

 

CADE:  Right.

 

GLEN (ph):  ... a bit of time.

 

CADE:  Yes.  Glen (ph), will you e-mail Ross (ph), please, and tell him the same thing?

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes.  Yes, yes, certainly.  But I've already asked Ross (ph) ...

 

CADE:  OK.

 

GLEN (ph):  ... to see if (ph) he (ph) has (ph) done – I'll help you listen to it, yes.

 

CADE:  All right.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Marilyn (ph), do you have an HTML editor (ph)?

 

CADE:  And, you know, where would I find that out?  I would go to my ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Do you have, say, Netscape on the center (ph) installed as your Web browser?

 

CADE:  No.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  It looks again that we're just working Word, and how convertible late (ph) point of time ...

 

GLEN (ph):  Can – would you be able to convert it ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think I will do – OK, I'll make a note (ph), yes, if time – I'll try to do that on a train ride on Friday.

 

GLEN (ph):  Oh.

 

THOMAS (ph):  Which is at eight a.m. American time.

 

CADE:  OK.  So I will get ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Ouch (ph).

 

CADE:  ... you the second (ph) ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Try to ...

 

CADE:  ... OK ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... get it tomorrow.

 

GLEN (ph):  Because on Friday I could still do a conversion between the time (ph), so Saturday now.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think we'll be able to send you a final document on Saturday, European time, with (ph) K (ph) Saturday evening, which is HTML.  It shouldn't ...

 

GLEN (ph):  In HTML.  That would be wonderful.

 

You know, I'm looking at the Web site here, and I don't see there – that's what worries me – I don't see the Shanghai – I see the interim report of the Nance (ph) council who (ph) is (ph) task force ...

 

CADE:  Yes, hold on ...

 

GLEN (ph):  ... 15th of October.

 

CADE:  ... yes, hold on, hold on just a minute.  Thomas (ph), you can go ahead and go.  I'll ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, I just wanted to ask one question to Glen (ph).

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes?

 

THOMAS (ph):  I think you are available something like – you will check your e-mail regularly something like late Saturday?

 

GLEN (ph):  … searching (ph) my e-mail regularly.

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  But make it late with my permission on that date, because it's my girlfriend's birthday.

 

GLEN (ph):  Oh, shame!  You're putting it ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Which is why I really want to get things finished on Friday.

 

GLEN (ph):  Oh, you do ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  She'll chop my head off if I do too much (INAUDIBLE) work on her birthday.

 

GLEN (ph):  I'm sure she will.

 

THOMAS (ph):  So, ...

 

GLEN (ph):  But, you know, for practical purposes, I think it's a very bad thing doing it over the weekend, because we can't get it up on the ICANN Web site.

 

CADE:  I know that.  But, Glen (ph), ...

 

GLEN (ph):  You just want ...

 

CADE:  No.  No, it isn't that I want to.  I've been instructed by the names council chair, really, that this has got to be posted to the names council ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.

 

GLEN (ph):  Fine.

 

CADE:  ... on the 30th.

 

GLEN (ph):  OK, ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  OK.  So worst case I put it up onto my Web site and send an e-mail to the council.

 

CADE:  And, so, getting it up on the ...

 

GLEN (ph):  That's fine.

 

CADE:  ... yes, OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  That's the easiest thing to do.

 

CADE:  I mean, you know, Glen (ph), the other thing that I can do if – we, well, you know, we can also post it individually to the names council e-mails if you send them to me.

 

GLEN (ph):  Oh, I can post it individually, too.

 

CADE:  Thomas (ph), you know, we could do that if we – if it causes a big problem, but ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  Well, I can very easily put it up on my Web site.

 

GLEN (ph):  Because there is a – what Bruce actually said was that we should tip (ph) it into the agenda that's up.

 

THOMAS (ph):  As a link.

 

GLEN (ph):  Yes, as a link.

 

THOMAS (ph):  I won't do it – Marilyn (ph), I'll send it to Glen (ph), and I'll put it up provisionally on my Web site, ...

 

CADE:  OK.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... and then Glen (ph) can post a link to the name – or I can …

 

GLEN (ph):  And then ...

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... a link to the names council list.  But let's really hope that all that is not necessary, ...

 

CADE:  Right.  No, I understand.

 

THOMAS (ph):  ... because it will be ...

 

CADE:  I understand.  But since I've been in meltdown with my PC and my cell phone, I've found out what the problem is.  When I'm roaming, it eats the batteries.  So, anyway.