[nc-transfer] Transfer Task Force 4 September, 2002 transcript

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

TRANSFER TASK FORCE
TRANSCRIPT by AT&T Corporation
September 4, 2002


OPERATOR:  Host - Marilyn Cade.  Conference ID number B like Bailey (ph), M
like Mary, C like Cade, 4761.  Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And I'm here.

OPERATOR:  OK.  This call is being recorded now.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Thank you.

OPERATOR:  You're welcome.

JEFF (ph):  Here - Jeff (ph) and Christine.

MARILYN CADE:  Hi, Jeff (ph).  Hi, Christine.

CHISTINE RUSSO:  Hi.

JEFF (ph):  Hello.

CADE:  Do I hear Ross?  This could be a short call if we don't have Ross.

JEFF (ph):  Or we can talk some more about Molly (ph).  That would .

CADE:  That'll fill in a bit of time.

JEFF (ph):  (INAUDIBLE)

CADE:  Let me call Ross and see where he is on my other line.  There - I can
actually update you guys on a couple of things.  Let me step away and dial
and then I will update you on my conversation.  Stuart Lynn (ph) and I did
have an extensive conversation about planning for Shanghai, so I can provide
some thoughts and get everyone's a view on what you think the best options
are for when we will actually have time to be able to do public outreach.
So, let me just try Ross on his cell phone.

[pause]

CADE: Ross has sent me an e-mail leaving me in charge for four more minutes,
guys.  So, let me see if I can fill it in.  The planning for Shanghai is, of
course - the planning opportunities for unscheduled time in Shanghai, of
course, relatively limited.  And that's to be expected given that there's a
need to deal with evolution and reform.  In addition to that, there will be
a whois public event outreach.  There will be a IPV6 (ph) - I'm going to
call it a workshop for lack of a better phrase.  I don't know how long the
IPV6 (ph) event will be.  The whois event, we hope [from the Task Force
view]  will be as much as two hours to allow some significant back and forth
from the community in relation to the whois recommendation.

There had been discussion of doing a transfer event- we had always expected
to make a presentation on transfer.  There was also some discussion raised
by Mike Palage (ph) about maybe doing a separate thing on transfer.  Stuart
(ph) is looking at how to squeeze in a transfer event or a workshop or a
public outreach or whatever we would call it.  And we could probably do a -
as much as a two-hour time period.  One of the evenings would be possible to
do.

We - what I suggested to him is I do is talk with you guys, get your ideas
and input and we could look at three possible options.  One would be to do
a - to do something that we would participate in helping to plan along with
a few other folks that he would identify.  And do it probably either Sunday
evening or Monday evening.  One would be to ask for a significant chunk of
time from either the names council time slot or the GA time slot and work
with the chair of the names council and the GA.  And put either whois or
transfers into a public comment period, during that - during that day.

I've talked briefly to Bruce (ph) about the idea of the names council
having - sort of managing more of a comment period on one of the items.  And
I think - I'm not going to speak for him, but I think that's a proposal that
we could make.  We could possibly do better in terms of participation in the
evening slot.

And I, you know, I think we're basically going to be putting forward
recommendations-- rather than making the decision-- because there's just a
lot of scheduling that we have to work around.

I'm assuming that something like two to three hours is more - is all the
community could bear and probably all that any of us could bear.  But I
would envision the transfers task force participating in helping to plan and
then making a presentation on the recommendations that are in the draft
final report.  And then participating, probably along with others, in
hearing from other points of view from the community.  That's kind of been
how things have happened before.  So there would be sort of probably like
maybe four presentations - the transfer task force being one of them and
then maybe other presentations.  And I can't comment on what those would be.
And I think that would come out of whatever the planning entity would put
together.  That would give us a chance to hear from the public at large.  We
would have a chance to present and respond to questions.  And it would
fulfill, I think, our intent to ensure some public input to the work of the
task force.

[Pause]

CADE: You guys are silent.  Does this mean you're awestruck?

JEFF (ph):  I think it's a good idea.  I mean, I don't think anyone - I
think - I think the public should have an opportunity in person to comment.

GRANT FORSYTH:  Hello.  It's Grant here.  I certainly feel that, yes, it
would be desirable to take some of the time at Shanghai to have a public
outreach.  In your description that you just gave us now, was there an
option - or were they options or were they just possibilities?  Because if
all we need to do is give back to the organizers an affirmative that, where
possible, they should conclude, I would say from what you've said, a
two-hour time slot - I don't think we need anymore than that - then that's
fine.  If they want us to make a - express a preference of choices of time
or association within the Shanghai meeting, then putting through us again
will do that, but .

CADE:  I think what they would like is an agreement that we would agree to
work with whatever organizers that they put together in planning the rest of
the event and that we would also make resources from the task force
available to participate on site in Shanghai.  And then we will work around
whatever the scheduling options are that they give us.  Does that .

FORSYTH:  OK.  Well, in that case, I'll suggest something, you know, whether
you want to be a formal as moving something, but I suggest that we, through
you, communicated with the organizers that we would like to have - input in
the program; an opportunity to present and receive feedback on transfers.
And it's really easy for me to say that because I won't be in Shanghai.

CADE:  Can I ask - Ross, is that you that just joined?  No?  Did we have
someone else that joined?  Can I ask of those of you that are on the call
who will be in Shanghai?  Jeff (ph), will you be?

JEFF (ph):  I'm pretty sure.  Yes.

CADE:  OK.  Christine?

RUSSO:  No.

CADE:  OK.  Glen, you will be.  Mark?  We may have lost Mark.  Grant, you
won't be.  I don't know - I doubt - I doubt if Dan will be.  And I don't
know about Erick.  Glen, do you have any idea about Erick?

GLEN DE SAINT GERY:  Erick from Peru (ph).

CADE:  Yes.

DE SAINT GERY:  I would imagine no .
CADE:  OK.  And I don't .

DE SAINT GERY:  But I really don't know.  I haven't heard from him.

CADE:  OK.   I've spoken to David Safran and he will not be.  But I don't
know about Marty (ph), our newest addition from the IP (ph) - the IPC (ph).
I am expecting Ross to be there, though, Jeff (ph), wouldn't you expect?

JEFF (ph):  Yes, I would think so.  He's been at every one.  So, yes.

CADE:  Yes.  So, I think that means that we will have - hi.  Who just joined
us?

MARK MCFADDEN (ph):  It's Mark.  I dropped off somehow.

CADE:  Welcome back.  Mark, do you think you're going to be in China?

MCFADDEN:  I know for a fact I will not.

CADE:  Will not.  OK.  So, we have Jeff (ph), probably Ross and Marilyn from
the task force.  And Marty (ph) we have to check on.  OK.  The - what we're
going to do as soon as our friend Ross finds us is go through the report and
try to figure out the process by which we get this into a draft form, what
remains to be drafted, the additional questions that need to be answered, so
that we can get something posted for comment.  I also want to schedule two
open calls and I believe everyone's in agreement that we can do that.  Which
means I'd like to schedule one of the open calls for next week.

And I just want to see if there's - if people feel that they are going to be
able to be on the call for next week so that we could go ahead and open it
up and that would mean opening it up to any of the constituency and the GA.
What Glen typically does is send a notice out to all of the constituency and
GA list to invite people to participate.  The area where I think we may get
some expressed concern will be about whether or not we have yet reflected
the input of registrants in the drafting or in the document that we are
posting.  And the - I think one of the benefits of actually having the open
call will give us an opportunity to hear from some folks who identify
themselves as registrants.

Who just joined us?

ROSS RADER:  Ross Rader.

CADE:  Boy, you know, I was just running out of things to talk about.

RADER:  Thank you, Marilyn.

CADE:  Ross, I was just talking about trying to be prepared to do an open
call next week.

RADER:  Got you.

CADE:  So, I'm going to propose that we move forward with that idea and that
I invite, if at all possible - if Dan Halloren's (ph) schedule permits, that
I invite Dan to try to join us for that call as well.  And I think what we
can do - and, Ross, can I just verify that you are going to be in Shanghai?

RADER:  Yes.  Yes.  Absolutely.  Yes.

CADE:  .  OK.  I'll fill you in on the earlier part of the conversation.  It
really just had to do with making sure that we participate in the planning
of a transfer, public outreach session or workshop or whatever we're going
to call it there.  I did confirm with Stuart (ph) that they - there's the
opportunity to do that and want to confirm that the task force is going to
participate with others in helping to plan the event.  And then would
participate in presenting our recommendation.  We can go back to that at
another time.

I - are we ready to start kind of commenting on the document if that was the
primary purpose of today's call?

RADER:  Yes.  I think so.  You know, I'll throw this out to Mark and Jeff
(ph), if you guys wanted to review your contributions first and then go over
the document or go the document first and then proceed through those.
Presumably they were both on the call on this role call (ph).

MCFADDEN:  Well, I can actually talk about mine very quickly.  I am just now
in the process of sending out the glossary to the list.  The glossary is a
document that Ross sort of wrote the base of and that I've contributed some
additional things to it.  I don't think that it's - I don't it's very, what
should I say, controversial in any way because all it is is a glossary.  But
I think that comments could come back on that via the mail list and what I
would do is simply turn around those comments and give the document to Ross
and put into the draft document that we published, however he sees fit.
What do people think about that?

JEFF (ph):  Just a note on the controversial nature of definitions, Mark.
When I submitted to those to the ITS (ph), where was human cry, so never
underestimate the .

MCFADDEN:  Yes.

JEFF (ph):  . strength of those words.

CADE:  Can I mention one other thing that we had mentioned before, but I
just need to remind people that be sure that - we will need to, in the
document repost (ph) and in the final document, gather all up the links that
we are going to be providing to people.  So, if in the - in this document,
Mark, I don't know that that would apply to this document.  But if we are
going to have links or references to ITS (ph) documents, can you just
remember to note that and gather those.

MCFADDEN:  Sure.  I'd be happy to do that, Marilyn.  I think that the
references are primarily RFCs (ph) that cover things like, you know, who is
and so forth and .

CADE:  Right.  Right.  That would then be great.  OK.  Anyone else for Mark?

JEFF (ph):  This is Jeff (ph).  You're just asking for questions for Mark
right now?

CADE:  Yes.  And then I .

JEFF (ph):  Oh.

CADE:  Yes.  And then I was going to - we were going to go to you, right, I
think.

JEFF (ph):  Yes.  Sure.  I don't have any questions for Mark.

MCFADDEN:  Thanks.

CADE:  Then, Ross, you were - you wanted to turn this over to Jeff (ph),
then?

RADER:  Yes.  We could turn things over to Jeff (ph) now, if Mark's done.
Thanks a lot, Mark.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  Ross, we looked at the document, the registry constituency,
and I don't think we have any problems with the document.  What I really
wanted to address was the conversation that was started last week about
dispute resolution.  Is my voice echoing or is it just my phone?

RADER:  Yes, you are.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  Let me - let me switch phones.  Hold on.

CADE:  We thought it was something like a halo effect.

JEFF (ph):  Sorry about that.  Is that better?  That's not me.  OK.  We
were - we had a constituency call this morning and I got everyone on there
to talk a little bit about what we brought up on the last call about some
sort of dispute process and registry involvement in that dispute process.  A
number of issues were kicked back and forth last week.  So, I've taken some
notes from our meeting and I can send it around after this call just to let
you know some of the positions that are registries.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Who was on the call, Jeff (ph), if you don't
mind?

JEFF (ph):  Oh, actually, all the registries except for [inaudible. ] .

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK.

JEFF (ph):  . was on the call.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Great.

JEFF (ph):  And we basically, as a group, just thought that - you know, kind
of similar to what we said last week that, you know, the registries don't
want to be in a position that forces us to choose between, you know, our
exclusive distribution channel.  So, in other words, we don't want to be the
actual arbiters of these disputes.  That being said, we do recognize that we
have a role - that we will have a role to play in these dispute proceedings
that arise because of one, our control of certain data and two, because of
our contractual relationships with the registrars.

So, what we would recommend is that a dispute process be established with an
independent - with independent mutual third parties to serve as panelists.
And whether that's I can or whether that's, you know, you know, an
arbitration association, you know, we don't really have an opinion on, we
just know that we don't want to be the ones deciding these cases.

And then registries will cooperate to provide whatever data is needed so
long as one, there is a license put into the registry/registrar agreement
that actually allows us to give out that data.  And two, some sort of
compensation to the registries, if it - you know, because it will be a
manual process.  Some sort of cost-based recovery for participating and for
giving out this data.  And let me clarify.  We really only mean cost base.
We don't have any idea right now how much it would cost.  It might be a
couple pennies.  I don't know.  But just - there was just general agreement
on the call that if it cost us anything, we should be able to at least be
compensated and that could be out of some kind of filing fear or whatever.

RADER:  Jeff (ph), did you guys go into the definition of arbitration at
all?  In other words, what you perceive the community is asking you guys to
do?  Because I get the sense that perhaps what you think we're asking for -
the registrars - is much larger than what we may be asking for.

JEFF (ph):  That could very well be.  And we didn't go into it.  We just
kind of assumed that there's - it's - any kind of dispute proceeding has
registrar pinned up against registrar.  And understanding our relationship
with the registrars and you would understand it because you have a similar
type of relationship with your resellers.  You know, we charge $5.30.  We're
all trying to get domain name sales and, you know, we just - we want to help
out as much as we can.  We just don't - we ourselves do not want to be in a
position of choosing one party over the other.  It's just a very difficult
position to put us in.

Not to mention, you know, the other factors we talked about last week of,
you know, we don't have the expertise in doing that and it would probably be
more expensive for us to set up some sort of dispute panel than it would be
for an independent third party.  Now, obviously, things could change.  If
this process is more defined and then it, you know, it turns out not to be
as big as we think it is or not to be as controversial and the registries
are certainly willing to look at any proposal that's put forth.  But just
the initial picking on a very general level was that we did not want to be
the dispute providers.

But also, we had some other thoughts on this process as well.  We thought
that - and I'll send this around, too.  That registrars that are on the
losing end of the dispute should be required to pay all the fees of the
dispute panel.  In addition, registrars who are on the losing end of the
dispute should be subject to a set of graduated sanctions, including the
payment of monetary fines as, you know, you know, apart from the cost of the
dispute proceeding.

And then we recognize that the fines shouldn't go to us, the registries,
that there should be some sort of fund or something that these graduated,
sanctioned, monetary penalties should go to.  And, you know, we'd obviously
be interested to hear any recommendations or comments on that.  So, the fact
that we ask for graduated sanctions or penalties - don't mistake that as -
that we want money.  We just think that, you know, in order for this system
to work and have an effect, there should be some sort of penalties.

And, on that same token, efforts should be undertaken to discuss .

CADE:  Jeff (ph)?

JEFF (ph):  Yes.

CADE:  Could I - could I ask you a question about that?

JEFF (ph):  Oh, sure.

CADE:  By assuming there should be penalties, there is an assumption of - I'
m not -trying to translate what you guys were assuming, I'm just saying that
from my perception, by assuming there would always be penalties, that there
would be an assumption of fault.  If there were - there may be instances
where thoughtful people just have a disagreement and that is - it is then
resolved.  And it's difficult to assess fault or blame or whatever.  Were
you thinking - what was the purpose of the penalty?

JEFF (ph):  Yes.  It was not really - we recognized that in our discussion
this morning.  And I think it was only, you know, that - those certain
factors should be taken into consideration by the panel, as well.  So, you'
re right.  If it's a legitimate dispute and it's, you know, just it's - like
minds can differ on it - you know, we didn't envision monetary penalties for
that.  But if it was - if it was, you know, a registrar who continually
engages in the same type of behavior over and over again and is continually
found to be doing the same type of thing, you know, that sanctions would be
in order.

And on the same token, in order, you know, efforts should be undertaken to
discourage the filing of frivolous disputes.  So, we believe that, you know,
these can include, you know, a set of graduated sanctions imposed by Ican
(ph) against those actions that are deemed to be frivolous by a dispute
panel.  And two, all complaints - we believe that although - or we believe
that one measure to discourage frivolous complaints is to require, up front,
the complainants pay a filing fee, but that, of course, could be reimbursed
to the complainant if the complainant actually wins this dispute.  And, you
know, that will be reimbursed by the losing registrar.

Again, these are just initial thoughts that we discussed.  Oh, and one last
point.  We want to hear - we're interested in hearing more about what
happens to a transfer during dependency of any kind of dispute.  Because on
the one hand you have - you know, you can't allow fraudulent transfers to go
through.  But on the other hand, you don't want to be - this process to be
used as kind of a gaming mechanism to delay the transfer.  So, we're
interested in hearing more comments from the public in general - from you
guys and the public in general about how we can work towards those - towards
that goal.

So that's kind of what - the issues we discussed.  And, like I said, I'll
send this around tonight after the meeting.

RADER:  OK.  Great.  Was there any other - was there any other question for
Jeff (ph), or .

JEFF (ph):  I mean, is there a way we can incorporate some of this into the
document?

RADER:  Well, you know, Jeff (ph), from my perspective, I'm not comfortable,
at this stage, without any consultation from - with my constituency on it.
I know at first blush I'm not - I'm not terribly impressed with the
position.  But I'd need to see it on paper in order to make a more
(INAUDIBLE) judgment.

CADE:  Let me, Jeff (ph), let me - let me suggest something about
incorporation into a document.  There needs to be drafting done.  So, if you
have a draft to the document, that's what we're looking for from the people
who are participating on the drafting team.  So, if you have drafts then,
you know, that's what we need to see.  And it sounds like you, you know,
hadn't had a chance yet to actually write anything because the call just
took place this morning.  But, normally, what we would expect to see from
the working group would be if you had - you, for instance, could draft
substitute - a substitute paragraph or an edited section or something of
that nature and submit it.  And then we can - we would have a document with
edits in it that the rest of the task force could respond to.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  Yes.  That's - I was - I was going to send it around.  One
of the questions - I know - I think there's a mention in the document and
maybe I'm confusing documents, but I think there's a mention of dispute
resolution.

OPERATOR:  Excuse me.  This is Theresa (ph).  I'm very sorry to interrupt.
I'll be joining Dan Steinberg (ph) to the conference momentarily.

CADE:  Thank you.

OPERATOR:  Thank you.

CADE:  But, so, are you suggesting - that was what I was trying to
understand.  Have you actually - do you have drafting that is relative to
the document as a (INAUDIBLE)?

JEFF (ph):  Well, what I would do is I would like to expand on that
paragraph that talks about dispute.  So, yes, I can - I can take this - take
this - the notes that I've taken and I can incorporate it into those
paragraphs, send that around to the drafting group - or send that around to
the task force and take (ph) comments on it.  But really, one of my tasks
that I was given last week was to go back to my constituency and see how
we - how we would envision or give more thought to the resolution.  And that
's kind of what we did.

CADE:  Right.  So - Dan, welcome.

DAN STEINBERG:  Thanks, Marilyn.  Sorry for the delay.

CADE:  That's OK.  We're glad to hear your voice.  We have Grant, Mark,
Glen, Christine, Jeff (ph), Ross, now you and me .

STEINBERG (ph):  Great.

CADE:  . on this call.  And we're walking through the - we're going to start
walking through Ross' document in a minute.  But we've just been, first of
all, hearing from other members of the small drafting team.  Mark has
reported on the development of the appendix and Jeff (ph) has reported on -
and, Jeff (ph), at this point, you would be - am I right in thinking that
your submission is about - not about the entire document, at this point, but
is about a particular section.  Is that right?

JEFF (ph):  Right.  I mean, I think, you know, while - I mean, I think - the
registry constituency, obviously, is going to need more time for individual
members, like all the constituencies, to continue .

CADE:  Wait, wait, wait, wait.  Let me stop you for a minute.

JEFF (ph):  Hold on.

CADE:  This is not - I - everyone should go back to their constituencies,
but as a task force member, the constituencies will have time to consult on
the document.  I'm assuming, you know, everyone's keeping their constituency
informed, but the constituencies must have time to consult on the document
as it's drafted.

JEFF (ph):  Right.  Marilyn, that's what I was saying.

CADE:  OK.

JEFF (ph):  But I, you know, that - yes.  That Ron (ph) and I and Christine
are comfortable with this document the way it exists, we would add somewhere
in here and I need to find out the appropriate place where it talks about
disputes and how they are handled.  We'd like to add some of these concepts
in.  But, other than that, everything else - I mean, Ron (ph) and I believe
that.  With the changes that Ross made last week, that it - that it's a
document that's good to go out to the constituencies.

CADE:  So, Ross, how about - how about if Jeff (ph) wrote up and I, you
know, if there's - if it's a paragraph, there's the paragraph that's there
and then there's Ross' - then there's Jeff's (ph) edited .

RADER:  Yes.  As far as explicit - like where we need the most assistance
and, you know, just go back to some of the original instructions around this
from a few weeks back, you know, there's - the single base weakness in this
document is the pages starting - the section eight, starting on page 14 and
progressing through, I think it's section 18 or so, which completes on page
16.  Section 15, which finishes on page 16 - that describes a mechanism that
allows registrars to self enforce, self comply.  As a - as a voluntary
statement of best practice, that's reasonable.  As a municipal (ph) policy,
the process here is just - is not reasonable.  So any enforcement model
stuff needs to go in there.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  You lost me, Ross.  Sorry.

RADER:  Where did I lose you?  Sorry.

MCFADDEN (?):  Ross, you lost me as well.

RADER:  OK.  The - what - the registry constituency's got concerns, as do I,
around the enforcement model that's in the document.  I think this is -
(INAUDIBLE) from a conversation a few weeks ago, Jeff (ph).

JEFF (ph):  OK.

RADER:  What we're talking about here is the registry constituency is
putting forward a proposal that illustrates an enforcement model that we
could assume, given the consensus of the task force, in this document.
Where we need to insert that is, starting on page 14 with losing registrar
redrafts and continuing through section 15, which completes on page 16 of
the document.

JEFF (ph):  Right.  And I think what, you know, what we, as a task force,
obviously, our comments to the registry constituency comments aren't very
detailed with regard to the proceedings.  But I think that's a good area to
solicit - to solicit comments on some others, from the public.  You know, we
as a task force don't have to think of all the solutions.  We can certainly
put items out for discussion.

CADE:  Ross, I would - and I haven't had a chance to go back and look at
this in detail, but the - so the - it seems to me that at a minimum the task
force should put forward the models that come to their mind that they
understand and can document.  So, one model that I do think should be
taken - we should think about the concept of the Buzzman (ph) or the
enforcement process as better being proposed in the revised policy process
and see if there's anything we need to refer back to there, it seems to me.
And I'll try to do that, but I think (INAUDIBLE) should do that as well.

But I think we, you know, we ought to come up with the models that we think
are feasible because we have to develop this policy around those models and
we can't just - we can't really wait for others to do our work.  So at a
minimum, we ought to have the registry model and ICANN(ph) staff model and
if there's any other model that - is there a self-governance (ph) model?

I'm not saying there is, but is there a self-governance (ph) model where -
that works at the registrar level?  I have trouble, you know, it's a comment
I made last week is that, you know, reasonable that a company's paranoid
about ever putting competitors in charge of anything..

But is there a - is there a self-governance (ph) model - I guess the -
actually the dispute resolution model using an outside dispute resolution
source would be the third model?  Is that right?

RADER:  Yes.  You know, you're going to be on the obvious.  It's up to those
that are parties to the contract to enforce the written obligations under
those contracts.  I'm kind of at a loss.

So you know, as far as good ceiling (ph) advice, beyond that, I'm not sure.
I haven't thought about it too far, so - but I'm sure there are a number of
models that we can pursue.  (INAUDIBLE) each one is, is beyond my scope of
imagination at this point.

YVETTE (ph):  But I was just trying to think about did I capture the three
that seems most logical?

RADER:  I think so.  I think so.

YVETTE (ph):  OK.  OK.  Then - and you know, we can - I know we may not be
able to flush them out thoroughly in great detail, but we could - we seem to
be as structured as we can be so the comments we get back are useful.
Because one of the problems that we face is in many faces (ph), people find
it difficult to give meaningful, useful feedback on documents that are
posted.

And so we might think about at various points working with the Ican (ph)
staff to setting the task force and specific in my comments on this section,
blah, blah, blah, blah.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.  That's why I'm here.

YVETTE (ph):  Gee, that was interesting.  I think we're back.  Do you want
to just keep going Ross?

RADER:  Yes.  I'm certainly listening.

YVETTE (ph):  Jeff (ph), does that address - so we're talking about having
two or three options identified in that section and you're going to write up
your suggestions, right?

JEFF (ph):  I'm not sure what the - I know one of the options is the
self-governess (ph) that Ross has got in here already.

YVETTE (ph):  Yes.

JEFF (ph):  The other option is a dispute process and what's the third one?

RADER:  Registries enforcing the contracts.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No, I thought you said Ican (ph) staff model?

RADER:  Then there's four then.

YVETTE (ph):  Yes.  Oh, four, that's right.  There is four, yes.

JEFF (ph):  Yvette (ph), I don't think there's consensus that's in this
group so the - I mean, I'm telling you, I mean how would you ...

YVETTE (ph):  Jeff (ph), Jeff (ph) ...

JEFF (ph):  No, no, no.  Let me ...

YVETTE (ph):  ... we're not talking about consensus.  We're trying to
brainstorm as a task force.

JEFF (ph):  Right.  OK.  But let me try to narrow down, what do you mean by
registries enforcing their contracts?

RADER:  Very simply that when a party is not holding up their end of the
bargain as it relates to these contracts that we operate under, that the
registries take a practice (ph) stance in enforcing the other end of that
contract.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  Then I would add the registries talked a little bit about
that as well and I would add to that model and I could send a note that
under the agreement right now, the registries have one option and that's to
terminate.  That's it.  There's no kind of graduated sanctions.

Termination is an extreme remedy and so in that model, the registries would
have to have some sort of - and I'm not saying they're going to go for it,
but it would have to have some sort of graduated sanction, penalty, whatever
you want to call it, mechanism built into the contracts.

YVETTE (ph):  Jeff (ph), if I can comment on that.  In the (INAUDIBLE) task
force, that is exactly the recommendation that that task force is pursuing
in a different space, and I think that, you know, obviously it would behoove
us to note those - that need for graduated or accelerated, you know,
whatever - graduated process in documenting this.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  And I think ...

RADER:  And Jeff (ph), let me be very clear because it strikes me that your
treatment of the two comments as being separate issues, i.e., the
registries' arbitrator and registries' enforcer.  When I say the valid
enforcement model, I'm talking exclusively about the registry as enforcer.
So when you say registry as arbitrator, I treat that as being exactly the
same proposal.

JEFF (ph):  I'm - well, I'm treating it very similarly as well in saying
that the registries are not in favor of that.

RADER:  OK.  I just want to be clear that I'm ...

JEFF (ph):  Right.

RADER:  ... not putting forward two different propositions as it relates to
the registries.

JEFF (ph):  Right.  Now the only - the only thing I'm trying to make clear -
I'm treating them as two separate proposals though.  I mean the registries
feel the same way about both of them, you know, as being an arbitrator or
being an enforcer.

They are two different models.  One is enforcement of a contract, the other
is participating in a dispute resolution model.

RADER:  Correct.  And at this point I'm only interested in registries
enforcing the contract.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  And I think ...

RADER:  Putting the registries in the position as arbitrator is just - I
think is ridiculous.  There's so much interest in the (INAUDIBLE), it's just
not appropriate.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, if I could interrupt.  I think one
oftentimes follows the other.  In order to enforce our contracts, we need to
obviously do some investigation and that really relates to arbitration.  We
need to hear both sides out obviously and conduct some sort of dispute
process.

JEFF (ph):  And plus both will require us to be compensated.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Right.

JEFF (ph):  And I hate to make it sound commercial, but you know, we get
$5.30 per name per year.  So that's barely enough to have one, you know,
support for one phone call per year per registrant and certainly not enough
to conduct any kind of investigation.  But, you know, that is obviously one
tact and I think, you know, that needs to be provided out for comments too,
so ...

YVETTE (ph):  And I'm sorry Jeff (ph).  Would you - I missed that last - I
heard your response, but I didn't hear the questions before that?

JEFF (ph):  I think we were talking about the different models of
(INAUDIBLE) that we could pursue.  One is through a registries, you know,
what Ross registries enforcing the agreement, and again, I have to read that
more carefully.  The other thing is a dispute process and then the third
thing I've heard mentioned is the staff - somehow the staff getting
involved.  And of course, by contract at this point, the staff really
can't - may not have the jurisdiction to get involved because it's not part
of their agreement.  At least that's what they've been arguing.

YVETTE (ph):  Yes.  So the question of whether the - whether Ican (ph) could
operate a complaint dispute resolution service, which I think is - that was
what I was - sorry, that's what I meant as opposed to the staff getting
involved.  And your point would be, well, referring - the parties in the
contract would have to agree to such a referral since at this point, Ican
(ph) is not a party to the agreements.  Is that right?

JEFF (ph):  Right.  There are certain technicalities around that.

YVETTE (ph):  Is that right given that Ican (ph) has the accreditation
contracts with the - with ...

JEFF (ph):  Yes.  There is a technical way around it.  It would be - if Ican
(ph) agrees with the registry on a new addition to the registry agreement
...

YVETTE (ph):  Yes?

JEFF (ph):  ... it can theoretically be required to be cast on to the
registrars.  Now the registrars would at that point have an option.  They
could either - so in other words, there would be a proposed change to the
registry/registrar agreement.  If that's approved by Ican (ph), not if
they're the registrars, but by Ican (ph), technically the registries could
go to the registrars and say, look, here's a new registry red star
agreement.

You have two options.  You sign it and everything is fine.  You don't sign
it and you lose your accreditation in that particular TLD (ph).  And that's
kind of drastic, but technically that could happen.

YVETTE (ph):  Ross, do you have any - do you, just off the top of your head,
sorry to, you know, spring this on you this way, but do you have any
thoughts about that - about that particular approach?

RADER:  As far as getting the staff involved, I'd question whether that step
would actually be necessary given that the registrar/registry agreement is
actually subsumed (ph) in the agreement that the registry signed with Ican
(ph), so it's a question of who's got standing that only really the
registries and Ican (ph) can answer.

As far as (INAUDIBLE) the registrars into signing it, I don't think that's
necessary.  If it really comes down to where this policy need live, it
certainly is the registrar's preference, but if you have a uniform policy
across all registries that's administered under a contract with Ican (ph)
directly.

YVETTE (ph):  Right.

RADER:  So ...

YVETTE (ph):  You know, because otherwise - I mean I'm just kind of thinking
out loud, but otherwise we would have this patchwork of you do it one way
with one TLD (ph) and another way with another TLD (ph).

RADER:  We'd have a patchwork and given the registry's reticence to get
involved in from enforcement of these contracts, it would seem that whatever
policy we would implement anyway would be - it would be questionable as to
whether or not we'd get the desirable effect.

YVETTE (ph):  Right.

JEFF (ph):  I mean Ross, you really need to - when you refer to the contract
as it exists today, you really need to pay attention to a lot of the words
that are used.  There are certain obligations for the registry operator, but
none of which are involved investigation or involve any kind of
determination as to who's right.

I mean, the registry operator complete - the only obligation is we complete
the transfer if the losing registrar approves the request or we don't
receive a response.  And that's what we do.  I think the language was
horribly written and what it really ...

RADER:  You know, I'm not - I'm not going to get into a complete review of
the contracts Jeff (ph), but the one that I signed with Verisign (ph)
(INAUDIBLE) is very, very clear in that in order to get a transfer to go
through, I as a registrar have certain obligations that must be fulfilled.
That's a contract between me and the registry.

JEFF (ph):  Right.

RADER:  If I'm not upholding those obligations, I'm breaching the contract.
If I'm breaching the contract, then somebody needs to step in and say,
you're in breach, use your notice.  You've got a 30-day cure.  If you don't
cure, you lose your credit ...

JEFF (ph):  Yes, but see then Ross, you know as well as I do that it's not
that clear.  If we're not clear, then it would be enforced already.

RADER:  Well, I don't ...

JEFF (ph):  No, no, no.  Let me - let me explain.  I mean, because ...

YVETTE (ph):  Stop.  Hold on a minute here.  We are - this solving our
education is (ph) interesting for all of us, but we're trying to edit a
document.

RADER:  Good point.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  So basically there are three options.

RADER:  You made me unbite my tongue, Jeff (ph).  Way to go.

JEFF (ph):  There are three options, right?  There's staff - I mean,
there's - actually there's really two is registry enforcing their agreement
as Ross described or there's some sort of dispute process and either that's
handled by staff or an independent ...

RADER:  Or a third party, yes.

JEFF (ph):  ... third party or whatever.  I mean, that could be decided upon
and I don't think the task force needs to comment necessarily on which one
it prefers, but rather present the two options and then see what kind of
feedback we get.

YVETTE (ph):  I may disagree for just a minute because I have a question
here.  What kind of expertise would a third party have to have?  Would they
have to have expertise in understanding the transfer process itself?  Would
they have to have expertise in Ican's (ph) contracts?  What kind of
expertise would be required?

JEFF (ph):  I would ...

RADER:  I think that would - I think that would really depend on what policy
we put forward Marilyn.

CADE:  OK.

RADER:  If assuming what we are able to get written into a contract, so that
(INAUDIBLE) as to where this lists (ph) for a second, something that filled
the loopholes in the current Exhibit B, so it's very precise, very clear.

Which it likely won't be, but if it were, we're talking about a third party
that really just needs to be able to read a contract, look at the evidence
available and make a determination based on that.  So it's not - I don't see
this as being as necessarily as complex as per se the PDRP (ph), for
instance.

CADE:  And what kind of - what kind of information would the third party
have to have?  Could the - could the two registrars between themselves
provide all of the information that is needed or would the registry have to
provide information?

RADER:  It would be my inclination to say that the registrars could provide,
but Jeff (ph), maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

JEFF (ph):  Well, I would say that the registrars could theoretically
provide the information, but you're assuming that the registrars - that a
losing registrar would comply.  I think possibly in order to get the
reliable one, you might need the registry involved.

RADER:  Can you unpack that a little bit further?

JEFF (ph):  Well, I could perceive ...

RADER:  Like maybe an example just because I didn't follow it.

JEFF (ph):  Well, I mean, if ...

CADE:  Well, maybe the losing and gaining registrar during the whole process
are required to give all the information to the registry.  The registry has
no obligation except to keep it except in the event that the event that the
losing or gaining registrar fails to provide it during the arbitration, then
the registry can step in and provide it.

RADER:  Yes, if we're looking at arbitration Marilyn, I would assume the
(INAUDIBLE) revive (ph), would just be simply make a non-appearance and any
other ...

JEFF (ph):  Well, it's almost like the same type of information.  You know,
why does - why does the dispute provider need to go to the registrar to get
through this information when it can easily look it up?  I think it just
helps to verify certain information and to provide like a mutual source of
data.

But again, I'm just trying to play it through.  You know, we haven't defined
the dispute process yet, so it's kind of hard to figure out, but I would
imagine the registrars could theoretically provide all the data necessary
themselves, but I could imagine situations where there's, you know, some
sort of confirmation would be obtained from the registry.

RADER:  OK.

YVETTE (ph):  OK.  So that means that this particular section will have some
enhancements and additions to it and if they can't all be flushed out, then
we need to have a place holder that describes the - and we're saying two
options, but one option has two implementation approaches, right?

RADER:  That would be third party or staff?

YVETTE (ph):  Right.

RADER:  Right.

JEFF (ph):  I mean I'm thinking this - we can just say a third party and not
make a recommendation as to whether it should be staff or not.  It's not, I
mean, everything will be the same except for who does it and I guess maybe
we could put that up for comment.

RADER:  Well, see, you know, I think, you know, we should be explicit though
Bruce (ph), or I'm sorry, Jeff (ph).  You know, (INAUDIBLE), OK?  The - we
should be explicit about it if we are thinking of third parties and I can't
be one of those third parties.  I don't think we should necessarily bury
that sock because that may - that may shape some people's judgment as to -
as to what they prefer.

JEFF (ph):  I mean, yes, we could put that in, you know, some language
saying, you know, some sort of dispute process done by a third party,
possibly Ican (ph), possibly, you know, someone else and see comments on it.

YVETTE (ph):  What do we need to - OK, so we move past this section?

RADER:  No.  I would - we're slipping dangerously on delivery here.

YVETTE (ph):  I didn't hear you, sorry.

RADER:  I said, it's my view that we're slipping dangerously on delivery
here.

YVETTE (ph):  Oh.

RADER:  As it relates to the document.

YVETTE (ph):  I agree with you on that.

RADER:  We should as a group or at your discretion Marilyn, to put some
stakes in the ground as to when we would see these sort of recommendations
come forward as it relates to this section anyway.

CADE:  OK.  Jeff (ph), you owe us an insert.  Is that right?

JEFF (ph):  Yes.  And I can give that to you, but just understand that this
is on a very high level and if we decide to go forward with this dispute
model, then it's going to be a whole, you know, either it's this - probably
this task force, but it'd be a whole separate process on kind of like the
EDRP (ph).

You know, it would be like a whole separate process of determining the rules
and procedures and all that fun stuff.  Does that make sense?

CADE:  The development of the - an operation of a dispute resolution process
itself, I think, would need to be developed in a different process.  Is that
what you're saying?

JEFF (ph):  Yes.

CADE:  OK.  I don't think anyone disagrees about that, but we have to say
enough in the document for people to be able to make comments.  So ...

JEFF (ph):  Yes.  I agree.  OK.  So give me a - give me a date.  Give me a
drop dead date Ross.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Marilyn's?

RADER:  Yes.  Refer to Marilyn on that one so that because she's got a
better sense of what the - what our other deadlines are and I haven't ...

CADE:  I'm doing an open call next week and I want as complete a document as
possible by then and I think that means Jeff (ph), this is Wednesday?  Is
Friday - Ross, is Friday doable?

RADER:  For my recommendation, sure.

CADE:  Jeff (ph)?

JEFF (ph):  Yes.

RADER:  That puts you on the (INAUDIBLE) Mark.

MCFADDEN:  Yes, I'm cool with that.

RADER:  OK.  Great.

CADE:  OK.  So that means that any submissions are due to Ross on Friday and
that means that Monday, Ross, we would have - Monday sometime or Tuesday
sometime, we could have an integrated document that we could - because we
need to get it out in time for people to be able to read it.

We can post it on our, you know, we could post it on our list that people
can access it near the archive.  But we would want to probably get it posted
at least the day before.

RADER:  Sure.  Sure.  OK.  Sure.  Yes.  Yes.

CADE:  Let's keep going on where and, you know, if we - if we find that
there are sections that we can't (INAUDIBLE) them out in enough detail,
let's mark that and figure out how critical they are, but - so we have a
timeline so next section?

RADER:  Yes.  Just sort of the last of the - of the roaming contributions, a
lot of Grant's (ph) stuff has made it directly into the document, but, you
know, I certainly wanted to give him the same opportunity as Jeff (ph) and
Mark had.  Is there anything further Grant that you wanted to discuss
directly?

FORSYTH:  I've gone through what I understand to be the latest drop that
we're talking about, which you sent out by the close of your business
yesterday.

RADER:  Yes?

FORSYTH:  You know, I really don't.  I've got a couple of small spellings
and I've got one other - I guess it's a question.  Do you want me to put it
to you now?

RADER:  Sure.  Sure.

JEFF (ph):  I'm sorry.  We've got - I just heard Grant say there were
documents put out yesterday?

FORSYTH:  Yes, (INAUDIBLE) about the trip.  Well, yes, by my time.

JEFF (ph):  Oh.

RADER:  Yes.  It was - let me just check this date here.

JEFF (ph):  Maybe that's why I'm lost.  I didn't get - I don't think I got
it.

RADER:  It was 0903, around 8/19, so that was yesterday morning.

JEFF (ph):  And you sent it around on the main list?

RADER:  On the main list, yes.

JEFF (ph):  Huh.

FORSYTH:  You have transferred task force e-mailers.

JEFF (ph):  That's curious.  I honestly didn't get it.

RADER:  I'll dispense it to you right now Jeff (ph).

JEFF (ph):  Cool.  Thank you.  Sorry about that.

FORSYTH:  The only (INAUDIBLE) substantive change I had I guess was in the
first principal, principal A, you know, the second sentence is, if a
conflict occurs Ican's (ph) original contract must take precedence in the
venue (ph), but registrars must not place additional restrictions upon a
registrant.

I just wonder whether that should in fact be and meant to say, registrars
and their agents or do you think it's sufficient just to talk about
registrars?  But my understanding is that much of the contact actually with
registrants occurs through not directly from the registrar, but through
their agent.

RADER:  Yes.  I can tell you what my sort of self interested answer would
be, but I think Mark would be better suited to answer that on an official
basis.

MCFADDEN:  I wish, yes.  I actually - let me sort of - the broad - the broad
problem for intermediaries, I guess that's what we're driving at, right?

CADE:  And I probably have an opinion about intermediaries as well Mark.
Yes, go ahead.

MCFADDEN:  The broad problem for intermediaries and I guess why it's
important to - why I have a self interest here is that the actual registrars
one step in some business sense, one step removed from the end user and so
policies that - parts of the transfer policy that affect the end user have
to be sensitive to the fact that that end user might be the actual
registrant or they also might in fact be the intermediary - the sort of
intermediary that we've talked about for so long.

That's something that we've done occasionally a good job at and sometimes
not been so sensitive to.  I think I - how does that sound to you Marilyn?

CADE:  I, you know, and I think, you know, the other thing is that all
intermediaries are created equal in their relationship on this.  And let
me - let me give you two bifurcated examples.  In one example, an ISP is
providing the service to their customer to whom they provide complete ISP
services.  And they may or may not be called an ISP.

They can be called a Web hoster (ph), they could be called corporate
registration department, something of that nature.  And so they're providing
a whole range of services to a customer and that customer is building a Web
site and getting the domain name is a tiny, tiny part of the range of the
full business relationship to the customer.

Some of them facilitate how the customer interacts directly with a
registrar.  And some of them mat duke (ph) everything for the - they
basically have an outsourcing type relationship.

And it varies from what I've seen, both, I mean, from the - from the
entities that I've spoken to ranging from someone that you would think of as
a corporate business user, but they have a very significant number of domain
names and Web sites because of the products that they offer in the
marketplace.

So that if to accompany like a BT (ph) who is providing networking services,
Web hosting, Web design, et cetera and it's very hard to say the nature of
that intermediary's relationship backward to the customer and forward to the
registrar.  It's very hard to say that it's a one size fits all.

RADER:  Yes.  It's - if I could have my unofficial comments to that.  It
would be my preference so that the enforcer model isn't distributed too
widely.  And I completely hear what Mark is saying.  I completely hear what
Marilyn is saying.  But if this thing is so disbursed as to be font like
(ph), I don't know how effective it could be.

So if we could somehow achieve that and not a centralization of enforcement
(INAUDIBLE), but at least that control of enforcement, i.e., it's contracted
parties, it would be my preference, but ...

CADE:  All right.  We talked about this a little bit before Ross and I think
the question that I had asked was don't the registrars who have downstream
resellers have some kind of agreement in place with their downstream
resellers?

And I don't remember - I believe the answer from you was that you couldn't
answer for everyone, but largely you thought yes.  I'm trying to recoup that
from my memory.

RADER:  Well, I can give you - I can give you an answer from a two counts
(ph) perspective ...

CADE:  Yes.

RADER:  ... and the answer is absolutely yes.  We've got contracts with, I
don't know, is it 80 - 1200 (ph) resellers or something like that?

CADE:  Yes.

RADER:  There's 500, there's 500, there's 5,000 there functionally at any
given point in time.  But the fact of the matter is a contract is not
required to resell the demand (INAUDIBLE), and at what point do you go from
becoming a sort of secondary market player to being a reseller?  And then
...

CADE:  Yes?

RADER:  ... there's a big gray area.  So I don't know how much from a poly's
(ph) perspective we can actually count on a contract being advice (a) and
(b), that contract being actively in force.  I just don't know.

CADE:  But - so I guess I was not actually thinking primarily about the
reseller environment as I was about the sort of the intermediary environment
where the intermediary is providing the service, but they really don't see
themselves as a reseller in the name (ph).

RADER:  Well, it's all continuum (ph) of ...

CADE:  Yes.  Yes.

RADER:  ... a function.  You've got the, you know, you start off with the
secondary market players that are really in it just for selling domain names
for thousands of dollars or hundreds of dollars or whatever the going price
is nowadays, all the way up that continuum (ph) into the integrated full
solution, whole product solution, I'm going to hold your hand, I'm going to
try to do everything for you type of ...

CADE:  Yes.

RADER:  ... but it's really, it's the same species at the very least.

YVETTE (ph):  We should - keep in mind by the way, and I missed part of this
conversation so I apologize if I'm off - off line, but we should keep in
mind that the obligations under the agreement always fall within the
registrar and that transfer policy and everything else is not something that
the registrar can delegate to their resellers or affiliates.

So as far as enforcement goes, it would always be enforcement of the
registrar because it always remains the registrar's responsibilities, not
the ...

RADER:  The registrar's obligation to perform, right.

YVETTE (ph):  Right.

CADE:  OK.  Grant, does that - does that address your question?

FORSYTH:  I guess so.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, he expected a very short yes to follow
along (ph).

CADE:  Well, it was so fascinating.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well ...

CADE:  But that's so - let's talk a little bit about that.  Grant expected a
yes and we didn't give him a yes.  None of us gave him a yes.

FORSYTH:  And the point is that if I'm a registrant, and let's say I've done
all my business through an ISP or an agent, and I get slapped off of that
agent, and some other agent comes along to me and says, look, I'll take over
your whole Internet experience, including managing your domain name.

I'd say great, go for it.  And if what's to say that this agent is going to
go along with the prices which we set up between the registrars and registry
(ph), or is it going to frustrate it?

RADER:  So which way will you see - let me rephrase that Grant because I
think I didn't quite clue into what you were saying before, so similar to
how the registrars have an obligation today regardless of who's involved in
the process to abide by the contracts that they have with the registries,
you would like that to continue with this new policy, whatever that may be?
So, in other words, if the - right now the beginning registrator (ph) has an
obligation to get paperwork X, Y and Z that regardless of whatever agency
agreements that still must be fulfilled.  Similarly, as the registrar cannot
charge extra for a transfer, maybe that's what the policy's going to be,
neither can their agents.

FORSYTH:  All right, that's the policy on - I don't know if it's Visa but if
that's the policy then, yes, that's not a bad example.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It was just an example but OK.

FORSYTH:  Maybe what you're saying is, it's sufficient to lock the
registrars into the contract because at the end of the day they are the
interface with the registry and therefore, whatever shenanigans may wish to
be, you know, methoded (ph) upon the registrars by some sloppy agent, the
registrar will not be able to countenance that or pursue it given their
contractual relationships with the registry and this policy and if that's
the safeguard because they're the gatekeeper, I guess, or one of the
gatekeepers then and you think that's sufficient then fine.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK, let me - there's going to be some language
that captures that nuance in a way that's actually effective.  So, let me
chew on that and see if I can't come up with something.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  How about just a reminder that registrars are
responsible for the actions of their resellers and affiliates?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, they're not ...

FORSYTH:  You know that may be sufficient and that just puts the onus back
on the registrars to structure their relationship with the agents in
whatever manner they wish to, to ensure that they the registrars are not
frustrated in their obligations ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

FORSYTH:  ... which is what this document's all about.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Right.  Well, the contract already says that the
registrars are responsible for their resellers, maybe it can just be
reinforced and ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No, that's - it's not actually what it says.  The
contracts actually take - don't take into account the concept of resellers
in any way, shape or form.  So, at the end of the day you're left with the
relationship between the registrant, registrar and the registry.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  No, no, the contracts - I don't want to get into
an argument but the contracts do provide that the registrar's responsible
for all the actions of its resellers.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, that's news to me but OK.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'll send you off line or I'll send it to the
group the provision in the contract.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK.

Is that new with the new TGLDs (ph) or?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I haven't looked at their signed agreement.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Boy, you know what, I think you're both right.
Ross, I haven't looked into it more (ph) but I think you're right, I think
it doesn't - it's just a given.  I don't think it's specified in ours but it
may be in the new ones.

Well, I could be wrong, someone will look right now.

FORSYTH:  OK, if I could just move on (INAUDIBLE) give you a couple of other
comments.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, please do Grant, thanks.

FORSYTH:  I noticed that you again under principle L, being L for M (ph) you
note that principle being the process implementation and administration must
be the responsibility of the gaming (ph) registrar.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

FORSYTH:  You've got a note here make explicit statement of default rule.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

FORSYTH:  Which default rule?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  The default rule of ACK (ph) versus NACK (ph).
In other words, unless otherwise stated ...

FORSYTH:  Are you doing that?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'm sorry.

FORSYTH:  Are you the person who's going to provide that drafting?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Oh yes, sure, that is a drafting note.

FORSYTH:  Oh OK.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Oh sorry, my apologies, my apologies.

FORSYTH:  Fine.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That was just simply me not having the words to
actually put something together and was hoping that time would heal that
particular grim act of wound.

FORSYTH:  OK, well I look forward to seeing that bandage.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Great.

FORSYTH:  The next one, under principle T.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

FORSYTH:  I just wonder there, it says in the event of non-payment, the
losing registrar must not use transfer.  I wonder whether you want to be as
explicit as non-payment or rather you want to talk about in the event of
disputed payment.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  That's a good point.  If there's no objection
from the rest of the group, I'll make that change right now.

FORSYTH:  It's just that non-payment is a narrower path and you may have a
situation registrar exercising the NACK (ph) on a dispute where say, there
has been some payment but not full payment or something, or I don't know but
I think dispute might be a ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes .

FORSYTH:  ... herewith.

So, those are the - and I've got - I'll give you the typos while I'm here,
why not.  Just to show I did read the whole thing.

Sorry, back on page five under the issues of our first dash point says the
use of an application of registrar block.  You insert the word of and I
noted ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Which one's that?

FORSYTH:  ... in going through the descriptions of the registrar process,
there are two places where the customer, being the registrant ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Sorry, Grant, which - back to the principles,
which principle was that?  It was on page five?

FORSYTH:  That wasn't a principle; it was on the issues I think.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  On the issues, OK.

FORSYTH:  Page five for me.  Yes, on the issues, the first dash point.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Got it.  Thank you.

FORSYTH:  OK?

Reading through the process descriptions, I note that there are two
processes, if I read it correctly, where the registrant is called upon to
make a - to give a response.  In the gaining registrar process five, it is
G, customer decides intent and under the losing registrar process it's E,
customer decides intent.  Now I know and I just wonder whether that's - my
first (INAUDIBLE) thought or comment, you know, you're going to badger me
twice, me having already communicated my wishes to my agent be it an agent
of a registrar or the registrar itself.

I note that and then I went on to further read the one with the losing
registrar and I note that if I do not respond that that's taken
affirmatively so if it were at least ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, maybe I should clear that up a little bit,
you know, certainly do it verbally now.  That does appear in two different
places but it is not two different steps in two different processes.  It's
simply the same action once through the life cycle of the process that
starts ...

FORSYTH:  Yes but you are being, as I read it, the customer is going to be
contacted by two different registrars, the gaining registrar and the losing
registrar.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Correct and that's certainly not the - neither
the intent nor - that's not the intent of the process at all.

FORSYTH:  Well, I gave up I fought through the battle and put my cynical
black hat on and thought maybe this particularly being - I mean it being a
contact advisory by the losing registrar might actually have its benefits in
so much that it would likely reduce slamming as we now might have and if
that was the intent and if again, having worked out that I don't actually
have to proactively do anything for my original instruction, should it have
been a legitimate instruction, I don't have to do anything for my original
instruction to actually be actioned (ph) then I was reasonably comfortable
with that.  So, I just wanted to check my thinking through on that.  I just
noted aside is that those two contact points and having went through all
this and if my interpretation is correct I'm reasonably comfortable.

CADE:  Grant.

FORSYTH:  Yes.

CADE:  Can I come back to a question that you - the issue of slamming, I
might raise a different face to the issue of who does the contacting.  We
have been contacted corporately by a number of registrars.  In some cases
the registrar is the registrar of record and other cases they are not and we
centralize the management - our domain name registration so it's fairly easy
for us to know who our registrar is but the complaint that I've heard from
many of the PSWG companies, who are all big business users, is many of them
don't centralize this service inside their own company and I've heard
complaints on both sides, some of whom feel that they want to change their
registrar and they don't want to continue to - they don't want to have
engage with the present registrar.  Their preference is, they've decided to
change supplier, their preference is to go forward with that and this, I
think, maybe an area that - where we will pros and cons on both sides.  Are
you guys still there?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

FORSYTH:  Yes, fine.

CADE:  Sorry and I think I just wanted to flag it because I think it's an
area where we might expect a lot of different kinds of comments in relation
to who should perform this particular function depending on either the
experience that the registrar has or the expectation that the registrar has
and I mention it only so when we go through with the staff and flag the
areas, in particular, see comments, let's just be sure we pay attention to
this one everyone.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, you know, I would - paying - yes, as long as
we keep our basic principles in mind Marilyn, that's very reasonable.  So,
presumably, we have a clear understanding what some of those basic
principles are.

CADE:  Right.

UNIDENTIFIED PARITICPANT:  Some of the world that I've been working with are
that registrants shouldn't have to respond multiple times, two to three
times.

CADE:  Right.  Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Those customers do indeed; have a right to domain
name portability, that this process should be lightweight, efficient and
secure.  So, you know, I think if we can - at least if we - I'll be happy if
we proceed on that basis.

CADE:  Right and I think we all would be.  I think that registrants
themselves, do have some, you know, do have some expectations that may not
be very clear to them until they actually have an experience that they're
not happy with.  Maybe we'll be - why don't we just keep going, maybe we
ought to think about agreement within the text for some kind of trying to
summarize those guiding principles about the outcome we're trying to achieve
in the policy that we're recommending, should achieve, should address the
following principles, something of that nature?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

CADE:  OK.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Oh, (INAUDIBLE) for you Grant, you strike a lot
of conversation.

FORSYTH:  Yes it was, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Thanks Marilyn.

FORSYTH:  Yes, so I went through all the fits, on (INAUDIBLE) on those snips
(ph) I was really looking at those customers but you know, I think it works
yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Great.

So, I think at that point we spent a good hour, 20 on the document I'm happy
to pass it back to you Marilyn unless there's any other questions.

CADE:  So, we have income, that'd be nice, we have input coming from Mark
and finalizing his input to you and from Jeff, are there other places in the
document where you feel that you need additional input from any other
members of the task force?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Where we are notoriously short of input is still
around, for instance, this - let me see what the heading is here.  I should
have numbered these slightly different but I didn't, under 5-K (ph), where
we discuss under section I there, the - what a valid form of authorization
looks like.

So, we make reference to master form of authorization, an electronic sibling
of that physical form who makes very specific statements around e-mail
versus electronic.  At this stage I have no idea whether or not this is - it
could be that silence is assent but I've no clear understanding whether or
not this actually represents where the task force is at on this particular
issue.

CADE:  Well, I think that's an important area that we should offer some
comments on what do we think valid forms of authorization are?  Assuming
that the ultimate valid form of authorization is an off code?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

CADE:  What is the - but we understand that there may not be off codes in
all instances.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It worked for a long time in some instances.

CADE:  Fine, right.

So, what is a valid form of authorization from a registrant that is
presented and I think that's something that we do need - we need to comment
on.  I can tell you what my company objected to in the past.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

CADE:  They objected to being asked to fax in a copy of a photo ID such as
their driver's license.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I guess for AT&T Corp. that would be reasonably
inappropriate.

CADE:  A little bit difficult.  They objected to presenting a notarized
statement and I think that was my short list of objections that I passed on
at the time to the two registrars in question.  So, we need to flesh this
out.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, you know, in that case I would definitely -
I think we make some reasonably good recommendations here under 5-K (ph),
one, two and three as far as what these authorizations look like or could
look like ...

CADE:  Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  ... but I just I also recognize that we haven't
had a lot of discussion around that so I would draw everybody's attention to
that particular clause.

CADE:  Well, can we comment on it right now?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, if you wish, absolutely.

CADE:  I do because I don't want to move this as much as we can.

The scenario in a corporation who a registration - a transfer could be
authorized, the management of a transfer could be undertaken by a paralegal,
by a business manager - I'm trying to think of examples that I kind of know
of, by a paralegal, by a business manager, by a designated D&F manager, if
the company's big enough to have someone who has that in their portfolio,
by, for a small business, by the secretary or the owner of the business.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  The ISP.

CADE:  By the ISP, it's a wide range - I would assume that the ISP would
still need to have something through the registrant such as a - some kind of
a request to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, well, that comes back to our definition of a
parent authority, which was going to be my next point.

CADE:  Right.

Mark, do you have any thoughts on this?

MCFADDEN:  I knew you were going to do this.  You know, when I've talked to
ISPs about this in the last couple of months, the apparent - this is the
place where apparent authority can most easily break down because their not
getting, you know, the photocopy of the passport and the notarized signature
doing this.  Do I have a feeling that, you know, most - if I go to my ISP
right now and I actually ask my - if I ask - well, I recently did this - to
give you some experience, I actually recently did this for my own
constituency.  I actually transferred the domain and e-mail turned about to
be enough.  That was between intermediaries.  It was an ISP in Germany
transferring to a Web hosting company in the United States.

CADE:  Well, I'm of the opinion Mark, myself, I mean I have - I'm of the
opinion that e-mail that provides the - that says, I am the person who has
the authority to do this, however it's said, you know, I'm Marilyn Cade and
I'm the administrator for the .biz constituency - I'm not but let's say I
were - not taking on another job, the .biz constituency Web site and I
request you do the following and I give my name and contact information, why
is that not enough to indicate to the new registrar and to the losing
registrar that the request is valid?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Because you'll immediately have 5,000 Bill Gates
pop up and try and do the same thing at Microsoft.com.

CADE:  OK.

So, I would be thrilled to see 5,000 Marilyn Cades.  I know the rest of you
are waiting for that day but leaving that point aside, so, from - what kind
of safeguards are needed then?

MCFADDEN:  OK, if we take as an example and not to go too far afield here
but just give me a minute, if we take the example from the number
registries, from the IP address registries?

CADE:  Yes.

MCFADDEN:  They actually don't allow this transfer to take place by the NOA
(ph) mail.  You're required to either do it using an old form of a UNIX
style password command, which is not something we would want or they
actually use a public key system.  The problem with the public key system in
the name space is that I don't think it's implementable.

CADE:  But Mark we will have the off code in the future.

MCFADDEN:  Yes.

CADE:  So, that would to me, that would fill in the, you know, that space.
What gets done - what should be the mechanism for those who do not have off
codes or won't have them in the near-term future and I don't think notarized
statements makes sense, I've got to tell you.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, you know, let's not back up, you know, this
is almost be coming a - you know, it's certainly your job Marilyn but the -
almost an exercise in air traffic control logistics.  So, I think right now
we've racked and stacked on the question of a parent authority, the question
of what constitutes a valid form of authorization and now, we're dealing
with the question of recovery.  So, perhaps, it would be my (INAUDIBLE) or
at least to manage this in the same manners that I can understand to first
deal with that question of apparent authority.

CADE:  Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Then get into the question of recovery mechanisms
for passwords, off info codes, et cetera, changing an invalid e-mail address
and then deal with the form of authorization question because, I think, that
what we learn under the recovery conversation will quickly extend itself to
the form of authorization.

CADE:  OK.

MCFADDEN:  Well, I guess, I'd agree with Ross here, I think once you have
apparent authority taken care of then the issue about whether or not you
could accept mail gets taken care of by virtue of that.

RADER:  And Ed (ph), you know, in my proposal on that is very, very simple
that the registrant has the authority, that's capital A authority to request
a transfer and beyond that, only the administrative contact have the
apparent authority.  So, in both cases we deal very explicitly with this
definition.

CADE:  Anyone see any problem with that?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  The only problem I have Ross, is I'm not sure
that the administrative contact has - oh, let me think this through, sorry,
I'm just - I'm not sure the admin. contact at least in .biz and .info, has
access to the off code but really only the registrant.  So, I guess, it
really doesn't matter because if the admin. contact has it; it got it from t
he registrant.

RADER:  Right and in all cases I do not think it would be appropriate that
the - well, the authority of the administrative contact would supersede that
of the registrant.  It would necessarily be second otherwise try and resolve
a dispute between - give it some sort of an intermediate that hasn't
received payment from their customer, it just becomes impossible but.

CADE:  And I think that's right and then I'm just thinking about it inside a
big company itself where, you know, hypothetically the registrant might be
the - or a mid-size company, the registrant might be the business owner.

RADER:  Well, the registrant would be AT&T Corp. Marilyn.

CADE:  The registrant, no but it'd be somebody who worked for us but the
administrative contact should have to go to whoever the registrant is to get
approval for making any changes.  I mean, I think that works.

RADER:  Well, to be clear though, the registrant is always the entity that
has legal control over that domain name.

CADE:  Yes.

RADER:  We only use that legal control in quotes, we all know that I meant
to say ownership but that's not quite true either.

CADE:  Right.  You didn't mean to say ownership, right?

RADER:  Of course.

CADE:  Yes, I know, I was just following the logic ...

RADER:  OK.

CADE:  ... and that also deals with the intermediary environment, if the
admin. contact is an IP; they still have to go back to the registrant to get
the off code for it.

RADER:  Correct.

CADE:  OK?

So, Ross, this is like an intricate puzzle.

RADER:  It is.  I can't believe it was that easy because our constituency's
been arguing about this for 18 months so.

CADE:  So ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think, Ross, a lot of the controversy is within
your constituency.

RADER:  Good point.

CADE:  And a lot of the expertise, too, perhaps so we may hear more.  OK,
then what do you need in terms of input at this point then?

RADER:  Well, just we have to do no (ph) more discussion on that, we can
move on to the question of recovery.

CADE:  OK.

RADER:  Which is not directly related to transfers but it certainly plays
into.  It also primes the pump for the question of the forms of
authorization but to go to your question of now that we've defined who has
control of and who does not have control of the domain name, Marilyn, in
what cases, let's say now, Marilyn@home.com was the default address for the
registrant for MarilynCade.com, AtHome is no longer a functioning e-mail
address server.

CADE:  Right.

RADER:  Marilyn's e-mail is now bouncing from that address, how does Marilyn
go to have her e-mail address updated?  So, without that current e-mail
address you can't get your off code, for a request of transfer or really do
anything and that's the only reason why this is relevant.

So, now you've indicated that notarized forms are inappropriate, photocopy
of driver's licenses may be inappropriate.

CADE:  Yes, you know, I ...

RADER:  Is there a way to get that updated ...

CADE:  Yes.

RADER:  ... to check your ID to make sure you are Marilyn Cade that owns
MarilynCade.com and not just some Marilyn at home that's ...

CADE:  Yes.

Look, I through out my personal view on it as an example of what I was told
was inappropriate but let's have a discussion on it because everyone might
not think it's inappropriate but the other point that I would make is, in
the United States some photo IDs have social security numbers on them and
some people are reluctant to provide copies of their photo ID for that
reason.

RADER:  Right.

CADE:  And it, you know, kind of varies from individual-to-individual but it
is a problem that we should just be aware of and I don't know that photo IDs
exist in many other parts of the world, other than passports, that could be
used for that purpose and I think what we're trying to deal with is an
interim situation, off codes are not available and we have to evolve towards
some kind of agreed to process that registrants are able to comply with and
registrars can live with.

RADER:  Right.

CADE:  What do registrars do now when they take a registration and they take
a form of payment that is other than a credit card, what do registrars do
now to identify the person to whom they're going to send the bill, if
anything?

RADER:  You know that's relatively easy because this is all happening up
front.  The one thing that works and works well is through the life cycle of
the domain name if none of the contact objects or methods are broken, it is
very, very easy to keep that cycle going, that you are the registrant
because that chain has never been broken.  Once you break that chain you
know that a registrant, that may or may not be that owner ...

CADE:  Right.

RADER:  ... floating around somewhere in the ether, that you can't
necessarily connect back to that original chain.  So, at that point, you
really have to rely on good faith and best judgment.  You see what I'm
saying there?

CADE:  Yes - yes - yes.

RADER:  So, if the, you know, if it's largely the registrants don't want to
fax in the driver's license or sign a notarized document, if that's a real
requirement ...

CADE:  Well, how do you feel about a statement of self - OK, Jeff is our
lawyer here buy when I self-attest to something, I verify that I'm Marilyn
Cade am the rightful registrant, blah blah blah.  How do you feel about
statements like that?  Are we thinking that the 5,000 Bill Gates will go
ahead and sign that anyway?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, I think because you're dealing with an
international - I think people would sign it anyway unless there was
something, you know, they have to sign it, give immunity to the registrars.
It's not really enforceable.  It's not ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Giving immunity to registrar, if I give immunity
to the registrar for anything that happens to Marilyn, it's not going to do
much good.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Marilyn ...

CADE (?):  I'm just thinking - I'm thinking about right now the sex.com
case, which some of you may be following, where Verisign (ph) now, the
registrar, is on the hook because they got a signed document from someone
claiming to be the owner of that dot com name, sex.com and followed that or
relied on that piece of paper that they got and initiated the transfer.

Now, the court is looking at the issue of whether Verisign (ph) was
negligent in not requiring some further form of identification or to require
to do some sort of check as to see whether that was the actual person.

So, that's kind of why - I'm almost reluctant to say anything at this point
to see how that case turns out.

CADE:  Grant, you had a comment?

FORSYTH:  Yes, I don't know if we're going to resolve this.  I have a bigger
question and that is, we've now, I think, worked through Ross' document the,
one of the named I had the X and we're now have a discussion about FO - A is
it?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes.

FORSYTH:  And we've had previous discussions on apparent authority, my
question to Marilyn is, in putting to the main council a report, are all
those elements and possibly other elements going to be brought together?

That's the first question and the second question is, with regard to FOA,
would we not be better to have someone write a paper and I suggest it might
only be one page and whether it's attached to the IRDX (ph) or I don't know
what, they're saying FOAs might include some of the following and then if
someone is to write those things down then we can go in at them, discuss
other, et cetera but I think ...

CADE:  No, I think that's a great idea and actually I think we could do it
as a rapid eye kind.  We talked about that once before.  I think that,
actually, we probably have to put in that list photocopies of passports or
driver's license or other kinds of things if that, in fact, as examples of,
you know, the kind of things that might be considered.

Can I - where are we?  Have we done any drafting on this?  We just take
sections by itself and expand on it and then maybe I could get Christine and
another volunteer to kind of expand on what some of the examples are?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Yes, I think, you know, just from my perspective,
testing on the question of, is the driver's license a reasonable
expectation?  Is a notarized document?  Should registrants have choice, I
think those are questions that need to be answered before we get into the
drafting.  Certainly the registrar proposals on the table contemplate both a
physical process as well as two electronic processes.  I think it's really
important that we understand whether or not that's acceptable to the
registrant community before we proceed.  So, that's sort of where I was
going with the - just that whole line of question.

FORSYTH:  Ralph, I don't see much drafting and if all I just see is a list
and if one of the items on that list are acceptable, ID says that where is a
photocopy of a driver's license then and people don't and people think
that's a reasonable, one example of a reasonable authority then fine.  I
mean that's - all I think we're going to do is build up a list here so that
it provides a guidance with specifics to registrars.

CADE:  Yes, Christine?

RUSSO:  Yes.

CADE:  Would you contact David Safran please by e-mail and CC me and would
you work on trying to flesh out a list, I know this - you might think this
is not your area of expertise but I want to kind of spread the contribution
of drafting around a little bit.  If you could do that and Dan could you
make some contribution to that as well?

STEINBERG (ph):  Dan, Dan Steinberg (ph) you mean?

CADE:  I mean Dan Steinberg (ph).  You're the only Dan on the phone right
now.

STEINBERG (ph):  I never know which one you're talking about.  Sure.

CADE:  OK, so, David's out, Dan Steinberg (ph), copy me and yourself,
Christine and just sort of lay out - let's just do a brainstorm list of what
seems reasonable and that doesn't mean that we agree with the items, that's
not what the purpose of this is.

RUSSO:  And this is reasonable forms of authorization or forms of
identification?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Identification, right?

CADE:  It is reasonable forms of identification that could be used for
purposes of authorization, right?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  For validating that form of authorization.

CADE:  For validating, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  OK and it would be in the form of a non-exhausted
list.

CADE:  Right.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  It has to be one of them.  It could be, choose
one of the following (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Well, either way.  Yes, you know, back to the
question of policy before we and just quickly that that's something we also
need to discuss is whether or not this mention of top down or a registrar
out perspective or from a registrant's right up perspective.  In other
words, should the registrant have the right to choose between these methods
or should the registrar be able to dictate one of these methods?

CADE:  And I think that that's worth our - let's get the list.  Let's ask -
get them from the registrars because it is going to be hard for a registrar
to maintain a menu that's really long but registrars might agree that one of
the following six and I pick that number randomly here, maybe it's one of
the following three are substitutable for each other and you know, I would
think of it as something - it could be a notarized statement on letterhead,
it could be a photocopy of a legitimate driver's license in a - noting the
country of issue, it could be a passport with a photo, it could be I don't
know.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Articles of Incorporation.

CADE:  Yes, right but probably Dan, it's probably not that photo that you
are sending around on the Net of yourself it's probably has come a little
more, you know, maybe a name badge underneath that.

STEINBERG:  I don't know people have recognized me at airports based on that
photo.

CADE:  I'm sure they have but if we could come up with a list and you guys
could generate that by e-mail and do it real, you know, I think it's
relatively simple to do and just think about (INAUDIBLE) of red-faced nest
(ph) realizing that some registrants will say no and others will say that
seems reasonable and registrants range from an organization, a business, a
government employee, a individuals.  I probably haven't covered them all you
know, singly.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Just to clarify Marilyn, now was it your intent
to have this incorporated into the master document or to act as sort of a
supporting an appendix or?

CADE:  Well, I'm thinking of an appendix because that we could - working on
it.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Fair enough.  OK.

CADE:  You guys have a deadline but ...

FORSYTH:  And Ross when you talk about a master document, what master
document are you referring to?

RADER:  Just the IRDX document.

FORSYTH:  OK, which (INAUDIBLE) mine.

RADER:  We - or a larger document or whatever the recommendation is going
forward.

FORSYTH:  Well, exactly that brings me to my first question to Marilyn is,
what is it that you're planning to ultimately provide to the Names Council
for their sanction and to forward to the Board.

CADE:  I think we will follow the process of giving a boiled up version of
the key elements that are in recommendation and take public comment on that
with the idea that then we will have to do the complete report to the Board
and then move up to the Names Council in the appropriate format.  So, I'm
hoping that we'll have a, you know, sort of a - we'll have a table of
contents and not all the parts will be filled in by the time we go to the
Names Council.

We're going have a public - we're going to take open calls.  We're going to
publish a document on the 18th, which is now two weeks away and take public
comments on that and I hope, continue drafting the rest of the elements of
the report in the meantime, getting the documentation together, et cetera.
Then take the input we've gotten and redraft any sections that we think need
to be redrafted and for Shanghai, it would be, I think, a presentation on
our key elements and probably 75 percent of a final report, assuming it has
the links in it, it has what we've received so far, it has this major
section and it has our overall recommendation.

FORSYTH:  OK.

Could I ask you to provide us with that and with the type of contents of
what is you're ultimately provide the Names Council for sign off because my
thinking is we've done it and I know that's not - I should say, nearly done
it then.  Now, I don't think we're that far away.  I don't think there's
much more to do and if there is, then I think we need to - we should
identify where the gaps are very quickly because Ross' document we've worked
on for the last three weeks and it has altered very little and I think and I
don't expect it to alter any more at all other than perhaps a couple places
where there's just a small phrasing to come.  So, could you provide that to
us to give us a kind of overall steer as to the piece?

JEFF (ph):  Marilyn, this is Jeff, I have to drop off but just to quickly
respond to Grant, I think this is the main document.  I think some other
elements that need to go in this report are, you know, just more, I don't
want to call them administerial (ph) but basically you have to put in
certain elements of who participated.  Yes, explain different positions and
things like that, aside from this document.  This document's the main thing
but there are some other required elements.

CADE:  And ...

FORSYTH:  OK, well, ...

CADE:  And, yes, but ...

FORSYTH:  Yes, I understand that and that's why I think ...

CADE:  Right, right and yes, Grant ...

FORSYTH:  Can you do that for us just as a fit of with document with
content?

CADE:  I will do that and try to get it done and post to you guys over the
weekend.

FORSYTH:  Great.

CADE:  So we have sort of like the road map of what remains to be done.

We're close to being able to - we've got about 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes,
I just want to see where we are from your standpoint Ross but I just want to
verify, Christine, the list from you guys by Friday, right?

RUSSO:  Yes.

CADE:  Great.  OK, Ross back to you.

RADER:  Well, no, I have nothing further at this point actually.  I think
...

CADE:  Good, I have something further.

RADER:  OK.

CADE:  I want to invite Dan Halloran (ph) and Louie back on to the call for
us to probably kind of go through with them where things are and you know,
let's get in our heads again, what the policy questions are, what of this
and just so we sort out and we're not making assumptions about where's
policy, where's contract revision, that's blah blah blah, so I'm going to
invite them back onto the call and I hope to do that for next week and to be
able to spend like 30 minutes of them and then open the rest of the call up.
Take the document as we have prepared it and maybe we could, Ross, work on
sort of just the 10 points that we would want to present - pick the 10 major
points in the, maybe it's more than that but in the document and post those
as questions and ask people in their feedback to us on the open call, to try
to focus on that particular element.

RADER:  Fair enough.

CADE:  So we would have an organized input process.

RADER:  OK.

JEFF (ph):  Marilyn, I'm sorry this is Jeff.  You said that you were
inviting Louie and Dan on to talk about what element of the transfers issue
is policy?

CADE:  Yes.

JEFF (ph):  OK.  I just - I'm sorry, dismiss it.

CADE:  Right.

JEFF (ph):  Yes, OK.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  And just a quick update before you go, we are not
discussing deletions but the status of deletions is that, the Names Council
Chair and the Task Force Chair are working together to put together a short
process that would bring in a draft issues report and feedback to the Names
Council.  Originally, there'll be some kind of a report on the meeting on
the 12th.

Bruce was not sure that it would be anything other than an update and then
the Names Council would make a recommendation on how to address deletions.
So, that is in the hands of the Names Council and Bruce has - Bruce and I
have started putting together a process but it's not completed yet.  So, at
some point there will be feedback from the Names Council to the Task Force
on the (INAUDIBLE) Names Council is recommending on deletions and that
should be documented in the Names Council minutes and all of you have
representatives on the Names Council so I don't want it to be a mysterious
process to anyone.

We will - there'll be a transcript from this and we will have an open call
for about an hour and fifteen minutes of next week's call, and Glen and I
will work to get that notice out to all of your lists.  I urge you to notify
your constituencies as well, and Dan in particular, I think that the GA -
you'll have GA representatives who will be particularly interested.  I will
also ask Denise Michelle (ph) to post this to her at large list.  There may
be four or five people on that list who aren't on another list who might be
interesting in participating.

I propose to have two open calls, and that's where I think we are.  Any
comments?

STEINBERG:  Alice?

ALICE (ph):  Yes.

STEINBERG:  Dan here.  I think it's good to have GA people on the call
because I really don't see how you're ever going to get a GA position on any
of these subjects, but you'll probably get is different memories of the GA
with different perspectives offering their positions on it.

ALICE (ph):  Yes, I realize that, that's why I thought that we might take
this approach.

STEINBERG:  So, I always just put things out to people and not expect
anything back.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIAPANT:  I just wanted to officially state for the record
that that's what I was doing, rather than having it appear that I was doing
nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'd have to agree to a certain degree though,
Dan, that there are - there is a minority position within my constituency
that will be likely need to be heard, so the open calls are very useful for
that.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICPANT:  Good.  Thank you folks, what else remains.  I need
to just make one other clarifying point because I said we would discuss it.
We had during WLS, a submission that the tax force should examine whether to
make a recommendation to the Names Council - that - that - I'm going to
paraphrase this, and I may get it wrong, but it went something like that
rather than addressing - that board should have a policy by their decisions
about services that are introduced at the registry level, of a full (ph)
staff (ph), and that I think is still a pending item that I mentioned to you
folks that I wanted to discuss today of what the task force would say to the
Names Council, not that the task force would do any work on this issue.  I'
ve said that about six times, I'll say it again.  That we - remember we have
that as a recommendation, and we should figure out if we're going to hold
(ph) that recommendation to the Names Council for their consideration.

That they - the Names Council - all the recommendation would say is that the
task force based on its experience trying to develop advice, suggested that
the board should consider having a policy to guide any further decision.
So, could I just hear on some of you on - that would be not a big work item,
it would be a short discussion, a drafting of the statement that would go to
the Names Council, and we would need to determine - we would need to assess
what the view of the task force is on putting that statement forward.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I'm sorry, what would the statement say?  You
lost me, I'm sorry.

CADE (?):  Do you happen to remember what you're - it was sent in the form
of a recommendation,.

BOB:  Yes, I'll read the entire recommendation.  The Task Force that, let me
put my glasses back on so I can read past the third word, the Task Force
recommends that Ican (ph) board consultants and the relevant stake holders
who determine the processes by which future registry services are approved
by Ican in a manner that differentiates between services that may receive
undue benefit derived from the sole source control of the registry database,
by the registry operator and those that can be affected and operated in a
competitive manner.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I think my e-mail - I expressed my opinion, I'll
restate again, is that, you know, if you want to send that through your
Names Council straight to the Names Council, then go ahead.  I just think
it's completely outside the Task Force at this point and I would not like to
see it come from the Task Force.

CADE (?):  Are there any other  - let me be clear that I - that was Ross'
drafted resolution.  What I put forward was, I think probably, a much higher
level statement than that actual resolution but let me take comments from
others on but I believe, just to refresh our memory of but why we had a
very, very brief discussion on this is, that it was very difficult for the
Task Force to be providing advice at the time that an actual real live
decision was being made.  So, I thought what we had identified was that the
lack of a policy was creating a really significant challenge for the Task
Force or for anyone and that the view was that the Board should consider
having a policy, which they could refer.  I think my ...

FORSYTH:  Alice, Grant here, I happen to - I think this is in taxi (ph),
share some of Jeff's concern, I think the matter is properly a Names Council
matter because it's got nothing specifically to do with this title, which
here this Task Force has unearthed it but I think, it's a matter therefore
for the Names Council to resolve and what might be useful is for you to
raise the matter with Names Council being the Chair of this task force and
whether you want to do that by way of resolution or just by way of a matter
for discussion.  I don't know, it's up to you and then enlist the Names
Council to progress as it sees fit.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  I tend to agree with that, of course, Grant.

CADE:  Dan?

STEINBERG:  Hello.

CADE:  Do you have a view on this?

STEINBERG:  No haven't.  Not going to take any view on this one.

CADE:  OK.

STEINBERG:  Seriously.

CADE:  OK.  Christine?

RUSSO:  I would echo Jeff (ph) and John (ph).

CADE:  OK.

Did I miss anyone on the call?  Mark.

MCFADDEN:  I'm sitting with Grant here so I'll just leave it at that.

CADE:  OK.  OK, I have the guidance that I was looking for, which is
basically and what I propose to do and I will draft it and send it to
everyone, I propose to make a ...

RUSSO:  I need to hop off the call.

CADE:  OK, thanks Christine.

I propose to make a statement to the Names Council and not to - and to leave
any action at all in their hands.

JEFF (ph):  And to not say that it comes from the Task Force but.

CADE:  No, actually, I was going to suggest that mother had called me.

JEFF (ph):  And Marilyn ...

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Oh, let's not get too extreme here.

CADE:  Jeff, I will say that it is an item that came up and I am making a
statement as the Chair and that it was not discussed in detail in the Task
Force nor voted on in the Task Force.

JEFF (ph):  OK.

CADE:  Is that all right?

JEFF (ph):  That's fine.

CADE:  OK, leave my poor mother out it, right?

FORSYTH:  Marilyn, I think you can be a bit more specific in that.  You can
note that the Task Force saw it as a matter that would benefit from
discussion and resolution within the Names Council.  That would be my
suggestion.  Others may disagree but that what I think is appropriate.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Mike (ph)?

CADE:  All right, I feel better about that.  I feel guided.  If you don't
have hotels in Shanghai for those of you who are going, be sure you get one
and I want to schedule a Task Force meeting on, I think it's Sunday and I
will look into whether it's affordable to have dial-in and possible to have
dial-in in the hotel given the time difference et cetera.  I don't know what
that means but we are going to need to since we will have a short list of
members there, we are really going to need to have concluded, you know, this
before we go including any presentation materials that we might want to use.
I do have someone who can help to post a PowerPoint presentation together
but we need to give her some advance notice and Ralph, I might want to
consult with you.  I think that your presentation on a Day in the Life of a
Dot, is that right?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Sure.

CADE:  Something of that nature, I think we might want to think about, you
know, some informative materials for people who are not immersed in the
issues of transfers.  So, we might want to actually think about something
that shows sort of visually what a transfer process looks like but we can
think about that.

I will talk up the joys that the Task Force is pleased to work with whomever
else who designates to put together the planning of the transfer event and I
think that wraps it today.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Bye.

CADE:  Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Hey, thanks.  Bye.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Thanks Marilyn.  Bye.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT:  Thanks Marilyn.  Bye.
.END
___________________________
We welcome your feedback on this transcript. Please go to
http://www.emediamillworks.com/feedback/ or call Elizabeth Pennell at
301-731-1728 x138.