[nc-deletes] MINUTES -- NOVEMBER 25 CALL

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com>]

[I apologize for getting these out so late.  Now that we have MP3 recordings
of calls, I'm going to keep the minutes fairly short.]

DELETES TASK FORCE, CONFERENCE CALL NOTES
November 25, 2002   14:00 UTC

I. PARTICIPANTS

The following task force members were present on the call:

Registry constituency: Jordyn Buchanan:Jordyn.Buchanan@Registrypro.com
Business Constituency: Bret Fausett: fausett@lextext.com
IP constituency: Jane Mutimear: jane.mutimear@twobirds.com
Registrar constituency: Tim Ruiz: tim@godaddy.com
CCTLD constituency: Dr Eberhard Lisse: el@ac.lisse.na

II. AGENDA

The following agenda was proposed and accepted.

1) Discuss process and timelines, as requested by Bret Fausett.

2) Review constituency statements.

3) Discuss areas of agreement and issues still to be resolved.

4) Next steps.

III. DISCUSS PROCESS AND TIMELINES.

Fausett indicated that the Business Constituency did not feel that adequate
time was being given to discuss the issues related to the task force, and
that a more traditional policy process (not the new GNSO PDP) was more
appropriate for the group.

Buchanan agreed that the initial timeframes were unrealistic, and that some
modification would be required.  However, he indicated that the Task Force
should not unilaterally change the framework under which it was operating,
and until he had the opportunity to consult the Names Council, that the task
force should consider to operate as closely as possible to the timelines
under the new PDP.  As a compromise, Buchanan indicated that it would be
fair to continue to accept additional feedback from constituencies
throughout the task force's work, and that he would discuss the issue of
deadlines with the NC at the next call.

IV. REVIEW CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS

The statements from the Business, IP, Non-Commercial, Registry, and
Registrar constituencies were briefly reviewed.

V. DISCUSS AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Several areas in which consensus still had not been reached were identified
during the review of constituency statements.  Specifically:

1. Names deleted during a UDRP dispute.  Jane Mutimear had submitted a
proposal whereby a name under dispute would simply not be deleted by the
registry.  Buchanan indicated the registry would have no way to tell why the
name was locked, and suggested that perhaps the challenger would be willing
to pay for the name's renewal, if the name went out of service if the old
registrant did not pay for it.  Ruiz indicates that this was similar to a
proposal from the registrars constituency.  Buchanan agreed to write a
proposal to this effect.

2. The issue was raised of registrar re-allocation policies.  It was agreed
that a general statement indicating that names must be deleted prior to the
end of the 45 day grace period was an acceptable way of handling the issue.

3. Re-allocation policies.  Buchanan indicated that he didn't feel that
there was an adequate understanding to create a coherent policy on this
point.  Various other members indicated that it might be important to their
constituency to have a consistent policy on this issue.  Buchanan indicated
that it might not be practical to create specific recommendations.  Fausett
indicated that the first step was to determine whether or not
standardization was an important issue; if so, the task force could
determine what next steps were appropriate.  Buchanan requested that task
force members discuss this issue with their constituencies further.

VI. Next Steps

1. Next meeting was scheduled for December 4 at 1400 UTC.

2. Buchanan to draft a new UDRP proposal.

3. Buchanan to draft initial task force report, to be discussed on next
call.

4. All TF members to discuss the issue of re-allocation policies further
with their constituencies.