[nc-transfer] NC Transfer TF Transcript Settember 11, 2002

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

Transfer Task Force Meeting Transcript
September 11, 2002
List of attendees
DAN STEINBERG
ERICK IRIATE
MARILYN CADE
RICK WESSON
ROSS RADER
JEFF NEUMAN
GRANT FORSYTH
CHRISTINE RUSSO
GUESTS:
Dan Halloran ICANN staff
Ken Stubbs Affilias
Ram Mohan, Affilias
 David Wascher Manager The Registry at Info Avenue
Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>
 Rob Hall, of Momentous Corp (Internic.ca  Namescout.com.  rob@momentous.ca
 Bruce Beckwith VeriSign Registrar
Wanda Ketteman COMPACT 2 Technologies
mailto:wanda@compact2.com
Barbara Barnes Comporium Communications Barbara.Barnes@comporium.com
Jennifer Gilliam
Brandon Paine  Register.com, Inc.  Director, Policy and Public Affairs
bpaine@register.com Denise Michel <denisemichel@sbcglobal.net
Danny Younger
MARILYN:  Introduced the call:
We're going to have probably a mix of folks on the call.  Some folks will be
coming on at 2:30.  Other folks will be on for the first 30 minutes, and
we'll kind of primarily gear administrative things.  So, bear with us during
that portion.  And, I apologize if we are, we're a bit confused in our
communication.  But, we need to do a little scheduling and other kinds of
planning for the first 30 minutes.  And then we're going to turn it over to
the open discussion. .
MARILYN:  We are pretty close to having everyone who I expect for today.  So
let's give it one more minute, and then we will get started with the
administrative part of the call.  And then we'll be joined.. we may be
joined earlier.  But we'll definitely be joined at 2:30 by 13 people at last
count ...

And, where we will have an open call.  And I just -- Glenn (ph) maybe what I
should do is post the, shall I post your last list to the, to the archives
so everyone has the names?
MARILYN:  Right.  And I had two sets of requests, which haven't gone to you.
And Marie (ph) sent that out.  So, as far as I know, everyone has the
number.
GLENN (ph):  And they should have replied via the message that was sent to
them, and the number was on that.
KEN STUBBS (ph):  I saw the telephone number on the Amber Alert on the
Beltway this morning.
MARILYN:  But, we definitely need you in a half hour.  So if you have to put
us on mute or go do something else ...
STUBBS (ph):  I'll stay and put you on mute.
MARILYN:  And I will, in the meantime, do a roll call.
So, let me start with who I know is on the call.  I've got -- I know I have
Ross (ph), and I have Jeff (ph), and I have Glenn (ph), and I have Marilyn,
and I have Eric (ph), and I have Dan (ph).  Do I have Marty (ph)?  No, OK.
Do I have David Safran (ph)?
MARILYN:  And I didn't hear Christine (ph).  May not have her.  Mark
McFadden (ph) is not available, send his regrets.  I have not heard from
Jaime Love (ph) now, Eric (ph), for several weeks.  So, perhaps I should
just post off to him and check in with him, and I'll do that.
I didn't hear Grant (ph).  I'm not sure Grant (ph) -- I didn't hear back
from Grant (ph), or from Rick Shera (ph).  So I'm not sure that we will
expect them.  But I believe we probably have critical mass of the attendees.
MARILYN:  Hi Christine (ph).  Welcome.  We've got a pretty full house.  And
as soon as Glenn (ph) comes back, I would like to turn this over to her.
Glenn (ph), are you back yet?
MARILYN:  OK.  Let me tell you guys what we're going to do while Glenn (ph)
is finishing another item.
What we want to do today in the first 25 minutes or so, is do some
administrative planning, and update you on a couple of items related to
scheduling, as we know it.  And just make sure that we're all on board on
what we think needs to happen to plan those kinds of things.

And then, at 2:30 we'll have a group of guests who will participate with us
in a dialog about the draft documents.  And that will conclude today's call.
MARILYN:  ... to do -- what I'd like to do first, before we launch into
work, is to turn the meeting over to Glenn (ph) for a short statement that
she had contacted me about.  And Glenn (ph) I would welcome your comments to
the group.
GLENN (ph):  Thank you very much Marilyn.  Probably a lot of you don't know
but, this time a year ago, it was a sort of initiation for me into the DNS
O(ph) secretariat.  But, much more than that, many of us live in different
countries and different regions.  But we will all remember that some of us
were traveling back from an ICANN meeting in Uruguay, just one year ago
today, when this tragedy, which affected everyone happened.
Many ICANN'ers (ph) were stuck for days and even weeks in travel limbo, and
experienced great difficulties in getting in touch with loved ones who might
have been traveling or living in New York or Washington D.C.

Just to remind us that we are all really together as a global community, let
us join hands and form a virtual chain, fill our hearts with love and peace,
and have a moment of silence.
MARILYN:  Glenn (ph), thank you.  I really appreciate your reminding us and
offering that very heartfelt expression of regard for what all of us know as
of tragedy (ph) to our world, not just to America, but to our world.  Thank
you for doing that.
GLENN (ph):  It's a pleasure Marilyn.  It's the least I had to do.
MARILYN:  Let me take this back to the agenda.  Your Chair may have to
compose herself at some point.  It's been -- it's been a hard day today for
a variety of reasons, including the fact that some colleagues of mine lost
members of their family.  And, three of the --, the plane crashed in the
Pentagon and in New York City.  And I know that everyone on this call is
affected just as I was by this, so.
Let me turn us to agenda planning.  And I think we may have had one more
person join us, during the interim.  If you haven't announced yourself,
would you do that?
MARILYN:  Well, actually, I did want you to join now, (Denise Michel)
because I thought because of the agenda discussion.  Thanks for joining us.
So, we had talked -- I'd spoken very briefly with the taskforce about the
planning of an event that was going to go on in a public forum approach in
Shanghai (ph).  And, Denise (ph), could I just turn this over to you to give
a short update, and what the planning process is, and ...

MICHEL(ph):  Yes, thanks.  I'd be happy to.  And thanks for the opportunity.
Obviously this taskforce will be integral to this event.  Stuart Lynn (ph)
has asked us to organize a public session to discuss the transfer issue.
The intent of this session which will take place in Shang-hi (ph), is to
receive a status report, and raise the community's level of awareness of
this taskforce effort on transfers.  And also, educate the people who are in
attendance on the fundamental issues regarding the transfer issues.
And then also, to make a list of any ideas as to whether there's anything
additional and practical that ICAN or one of its organization should be
doing in this area.
So the intent here is to allow for a broader airing of the issues.  Not to,
of course, duplicate or in any way replace what the task force is doing.
It's simply to raise the level of awareness of these issues, and hopefully
provide some additional input to the task force's effort.
So the planning committee, we have a group that will be planning the
session.  The planning committee consists of myself, Marilyn, Chuck
Gomes(ph), Michael Palage (ph), and Thomas Roessler (ph).  And, this will,
this small group will only be in existence for a month, and its sole purpose
is to organize a productive session that will be well balanced and thorough
in its
MARILYN:  Thank you.  Sorry Denise (ph).  I had to tell the operator to see
if she could deal with our background noise.
MICHEL(ph):  That's OK.  Well, while I have you all on the phone, I think
Marilyn may have mentioned to you, our first order of business is to grab
one of the rare meeting rooms they have set aside in Shang-hi (ph), and to
put this on the meeting agenda at a time that's convenient, particularly for
the task forces as well as other constituency groups.  So, if you have time
on this call to let Marilyn know what your time and date, that would be
great.
MARILYN:  Let's do it, let's do it right now.
So, we were looking at, we were looking at Monday evening, or Tuesday
between noon and 2:00.  Tuesday evening might also be a potential.  The only
caveat here is that ICAN has not released a reception schedule, so we
aren't, it isn't clear what -- all attendees at the ICAN meeting.
Marilyn:   Well, can I express my preference?  First of all:
 ... which is, I want it to ensure is that we attend the
receptions-especially as organized by the host country.  And I, and I'm not
really being facetious.  It think that one of the things that's happened to
us in the past is that we have sometimes had to miss the opportunity to
interact with our hosts.  And I think that's a very important part of our
being in another country.  So, in planning this, my recommendation would be
that we poll the group real quickly, and just to verify who's going to be
there.  And try to give you a couple of options to work with, so that you
can plan just with us as one of ...   So far, the people who I know are
going to be there are Jeff (ph), myself, Ross (ph).  Is there anyone else
who is definitely going to be in Shang-hi GLENN (ph):  Glenn (ph) will be
there.
KEN:  Oh, I'll be there.  I'm sorry.  I thought you wanted me to stay off
the call until 2:30.
MARILYN:  Oh, right.  But, Ken,  (ph).  I was just thinking about taskforce
members in this particular case.
MARILYN:  Right, right, right.  So I think as long as Tuesday between 12:00
and 2:00 would be sandwiched, I gather, between the G/A (ph) and the names
(ph) counsel.  That should be a possibility, unless Ross (ph) or Jeff (ph)
would have a glitch in their time.  I'm not aware that I have a conference
in that time.
JEFF NEUMAN:  What -- I'm sorry.  What was the time again?  Tuesday ...
MARILYN:  It's Monday evening, Tuesday 12:00 to 2:00, between the G/A (ph)
and the names (ph) counsel.  And possibly Tuesday evening, realizing that
the social schedule has not been confirmed by the host.
JEFF NEUMAN:  Yes.  I would prefer Tuesday during the day.  We could do like
a lunch or
ROSS (ph):  No, I don't see a conflict from my end.  I'm not completely
aware of our constituency schedule.  But, you know, so that's going to be a
priority for me.  But other than that, I'm fairly free.
MARILYN:  Denise (ph), I would make only one other request.  So, our first,
our first option could be considered Tuesday during the day.  But I would
make one other request.  And that is that we would like to -- I'll ask the
participants  to comment on this -- but I would like very much to be able to
have dial-in, the ability to listen or Web cast or some other method, so
that the rest of the taskforce can participate.
MICHEL (ph):  Absolutely.
GRANT (ph):  Marilyn, it's Grant (ph) here.  I have one questions with
regards to the timing of the meeting.
GRANT (ph):  Given that it's my thought and I think will be supported by the
taskforce.  But, we will be at the stage of having the names (ph) counsel
adopt the taskforce's recommendations.  Is it important to have the meeting
before or after that adoption?
MARILYN:  I think that's an excellent point.  And, we actually probably need
to discuss that a little bit, Denise (ph).  Because, I've tried to advice
Stuart (ph) of that.  I actually had advised him of where we thought the
taskforce was.
We will have a, our draft final recommendations will be posted for comment.
And, don't know the, I don't know, Grant (ph), if we are going to be able to
have the taskforce adopt the recommendations, given that this further public
forum is announced.
Tomorrow we will be reviewing the taskforce status with the names (ph)
counsel.  And, perhaps that is really a question that we should take up with
them, in terms of timing.  I have been assuming we would have draft final
reports, and taking final comments.  And then, actually, probably publish
our final report, post-Shang-hi (ph), in order to take into account this
round of comments that would come in through the open forum.

GRANT (ph):  You know, Marilyn I -- my view is that we should be able to
present final report to the names (ph) counsel at Shang-hi (ph).  And that
the comments and input that would be received by the forum at Shang-hi (ph)
would be in addition to our report as input to the board.  So going up the
board would be the names (ph) counsel recommendations, and whatever comments
came in through the Shang-hi (ph) public meeting to, as further input to the
board, would be my thinking on time.
MARILYN:  Let's hear from the taskforce on that, Grant (ph).  I think that's
a, that's an excellent point.  So, what do we hear from the taskforce?
We're going to take a queue on that.  Does anyone want to comment on Grant's
(ph) proposal?
ROSS (ph):  You can put me in the queue Marilyn, it's Ross (ph).
MARILYN:  Grant (ph), would you just restate the concern you've raised,
which I think is a good point ...
GRANT (ph):  Sure.  I had suggested that, going forward, the time, the time
that we have between now and Shang-hi (ph) to get the taskforce times (ph)
completed report.  And what the recommendation -- OK, I have a
recommendation, and this leads to the main counsel in its Travis Bird (ph)
meeting.  And then, what its final report and recommendation to the names
(ph) counsel at Shang-hi (ph) for adoption.  That being raised as a question
as to the purpose of the public meeting in Shang-hi (ph).  And my suggestion
is that that public meeting in Shang-hi (ph) should be to provide additional
input and comment on the final recommendations from the names (ph) counsel.
So the board would get both the names (ph) counsel adopted taskforce
recommendations, and input, the public input on that final recommendation.
So that's why my thinking is to go this (ph) way (ph).
JEFF NEUMAN:  I thought, I thought there was -- when you present a final
report, there needs to be a period of comment before it goes to the board.
And I think it needs to be longer than just that one meeting at the, at
Shang-hi (ph).
So I don't think the board can get it at Shang-hi (ph), regardless of what
we do.  I think, I think we need public input before the final report, and
public input after the final report.
So, I'm not sure ...
MARILYN:  Well -- yes, Jeff (ph), why don't we walk thought the schedule,
and then I'll go back to the comments, that Grant (ph) has presented his
suggestion.
The schedule we're on is to try to post the draft version of what we're
working on now for the first round, a first round of comments.  It'll be
like an interim report, to post that next week.  That's the schedule that
we're committed to.  And that's hwy we're pushing so hard to get various
people to, you know, submit their piece parts, so to speak.

So the interim report should be posted next week.  That would be open for --
we had talked about a two to three week period, which takes us -- let me
find my calendar here again.  We talked about the week of the 16th.  We
would be open for comments then until the first week of, the end of the
first week of October, if we allow a three-week comment period.
We will have had two open calls, and we've had extensive open calls and
comments before, but no on this -- the document, parts of the document have
been out there, but not the interim report.  So that would mean the final
report would need to be drafted and posted the week of the seventh of
October.
JEFF NEUMAN:  How do we do that?  You mean, we could draft it starting the
seventh, but we need some time between the end of the comment period and
time to draft it.

MARILYN:  Well, I don't actually think that's right, Jeff (ph).  I think
that the report, a large part of the report, can be drafted.  And I'm gong
to be drafting assignments on that.  The sections about the final
recommendations will have to finalized in that period of time.  But if you
review the requirements that we have to submit, there's no reason that most
of that work can't be done, and should be underway once I make the
assignments, and who will draft particular sections.
Gathering the history, developing the link, documenting the outreach.  Those
are all things that we'll want to do in the meantime, right?  So it would
just be ...
JEFF NEUMAN-- my, I guess my point is that, let's say the 16th -- I'm just
picking a date because I'm not looking the calendar.
MARILYN:  Sure.
JEFF NEUMAN the 16th is when we post our draft, our interim draft.  Then our
comments until October, what, fifth, sixth?
MARILYN:  So that would be like three weeks, right?
JEFF NEUMAN: Yes, somewhere around there, right?
MARILYN:  Yes.
JEFF NEUMAN : Well then we need time to digest those comments before we
draft our final recommendation.
MARILYN:  OK, let me, let me -- let's just make sure that we're all on the
same page.  Everything except the recommendation section can be developed
and drafted in the meantime.  Because it's history, right?  Would that make
sense to you Jeff (ph)?
JEFF NEUMAN : Well, I mean, we can document some of the things like the
outreach we've done, but we can't document constituency positions and ...
MARILYN:  Oh, I understand,.  I'm just trying say, a fair amount of the
work, if you look at the outline, a fair amount of the work that needs to be
done -- and I do intend to make drafting assignments to people, but it will
be spread across the entire group -- a fair amount of the work will be done.
It's the currency and the documenting the constituency positions, et cetera,
and the outreach, the input we get on the, on the interim report that will
have to be done.
MICHEL(ph):  So let's ...
MARILYN:  I -- but I think where Jeff (ph) is going -- and if we're looking
at a calendar, it looks like we could only get the draft, final -- the draft
final report posted for comment by the end of the week of the 11th or the
beginning of the week of the 14th.  Which means, it wouldn't have been out,
Grant (ph), for long a long enough comment period.
JEFF NEUMAN : I'm sorry -- I mean, I don't mean to -- plus, we might want to
chance as a taskforce to get together and discuss some of the comments from
the public, and maybe change our recommendations or, you know, I don't know
what we're going to get, so.
MARILYN:  Well, Jeff (ph), I'm just trying to work with the calendar from
your perspective, and make sure I've captured it.  So I think your point,
the point you were making was, the limitations of time being what they are,
practically, the taskforce could expect to publish a draft final report the
14th for comment, but not expect to have -- but that the comments, but not
be tasted and digested before the ICAN meeting starts on Sunday the 28th.
JEFF NEUMAN : That's right.
MARILYN:  OK.  That's what I was trying to capture.
ROSS (ph):  Well, you know, I think, if we could jump into this point.
Regardless of whether the names (ph) counsel should get the report on the
third or at Shang-hi (ph), you know, there'll still be timing in terms of
the meeting.  It's probably, in advance of another expense question,
regardless of what that schedule looks like, should probably be what we're
talking about here.
MARILYN:  That's the purpose of the meeting.  Good point.  So, why don't
we -- but I think Grant's (ph) point was, the purpose of the meeting might
be different, depending on what status the draft final report was in.  And,
what I'm going to do is suggest that you guys talk with Denise (ph) about
the purpose of the meeting while I go back to the operator and see if I can
fix the noise problem.  And, as well, we'll see.  So, Denise (ph), you're in
charge of leading the discussion on the taskforce's ideas on the purpose of
the meeting, OK?
MICHEL (ph):  All right.
ROSS (ph):  The question I had Denise (ph), I mean -- you right now ...
MICHEL(ph):  I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
ROSS (ph):  Yes.  I'm going to get my spot in queue right now.  This is Ross
(ph).  Basically, Grant's (ph) question, I think it really comes down to,
avis (ph) had (ph) us in the document.  But, if the document is out of the
hands of the taskforce by that point, which I certainly hope it is, would
this be then an educational meeting as to what these, what these
recommendations are?  A general panel that discusses some of the broad
issues surrounding the policy, or is this perhaps an opportunity for the
names (ph) counsel, self-seek input on these recommendations?
MICHEL (ph):  Ross (ph), it could be all of the above.
MARILYN:  God, I left you guys alone and I come back and all of the above
sounds like a menu.
MICHEL (ph):  I don't mean to be facetious, but yes, it, the session can be
a general education.  Second, it also can be a presentation of the
taskforce's to file a report.  And third, if it's scheduled before the names
counsel meeting, it -- the names  counsel members may also find it useful in
factoring in comments for their actions on taskforce report.  What do you
think about that?
ROSS (ph):  I was hoping for a clearer statement.  I guess I can certainly
see how that might be the case.  You know, I would hate to be -- at that
stage would be a -- we have a ...
MARILYN:  Just give it a minute.  I promise it'll get better.
GRANT (ph):  You know, the problem is close to challenge the third time,
dear?
HALLORAN (ph):  I would like to take transfers for $500 please.
ROSS (ph):  No.  But what I was trying to say Denise (ph), is I'd hate to be
in the position at the last minute that people that need to be listening
aren't.  And that's really going to depend on the status of the document.
So, I guess what I'd request is that there'd be high level of coordination
between the panel meeting or the discussion and whoever has ownership of the
document at that point.  I mean, that'd be the taskforce names (ph) counsel
or the board.
MICHEL:  OK.  We can do that.
MARILYN:  Denise (ph), can we, can we go back to the timing issue for just a
minute?  Because, it would seem to me in that case that the optimum times
are either Monday evening, or Tuesday at noon, realizing that the taskforce
will have limited opportunity -- excuse me, the names (ph) counsel will have
limited opportunity to digest, if it's Tuesday at noon.  But given the
social calendar, that may be another obligation which we need to be
sensitive to, that may be the only option.
MICHEL:  So, is it the, is it the, is it the preference of this taskforce to
definitely have this session before the names (ph) counsel meeting?
MARILYN:  It would be my preference to have it before the names (ph) counsel
meeting.  Because I think it is difficult for the names (ph) counsel to have
a informed discussion without this -- if this meeting is going to take
place, then I would think it would be optimum to try to have it before the
names (ph) counsel meeting.  Regardless of what action the names (ph)
counsel might being asked to take.  But let me ask for comments from others.
ROSS (ph):  I concur with that Marilyn, it's Ross (ph) here.
JEFF NEUMAN This is Jeff (ph), I agree.
MARILYN:  Christine (ph)?  Christine (ph)?
CHRISTINE (ph):  Sorry.
MARILYN:  Does that make sense, does that make sense to you?
CHRISTINE (ph):  Yes.
MARILYN:  Grant (ph)?
GRANT (ph):  Yes, that works.
MARILYN:  OK.  And who did I miss here?  I missed Dan (ph)?
HALLORAN (ph):  Hello?
MARILYN:  Yes, Dan (ph), we're suggesting that since the session's gong to
take place, it ought to take place before the names (ph) counsel.
HALLORAN (ph):  I agree.
MARILYN:  OK.  Eric (ph)?
ERIC (ph):  I don't know.  That really don't effect me.
MARILYN:  ... Just -- Eric (ph).  I think we're probably being joined by --.
Denise (ph), is that -- is that...
MICHELLE (ph):  That's very helpful, thank you.
MARILYN:  OK.  Yes, I think that's as much guidance we can give you.
MICHELLE (ph):  That's great -- thank you.
MARILYN:  We are now at -- we've had enough people I think joined us for the
open (ph) portion of the call.  The one remaining item of business that I
want to get to, but I'm not going to take up online time, the --
regarding -- the design of drafting and assignments for the -- for the
preparation of the interim report.  So I'll be communicating with people to
sort of -- after we -- to put an outline out in more detail.  And then ask
drafting teams to take particular sections so that we can move forward.
Some of this stuff we're going to be able to do even as we are completing
the next two weeks of work that is gathering the historical information and
documents, et cetera. But I want to move that off the agenda right now so
that we can take advantage of the fact that a number of people agreed to
spend some time with us today.  And I'm fairly sure we've got folks on the
phone.  So what I'd like to do is do a roll call of who's on the call right
now besides the task force.
Let me remind everyone, the calls are transcribed.  When you speak, please
say your name and your affiliation, that should be -- and remember to do
that.  The transcriptionist has the names of the task force members.  But
it's helpful to them if you can give your name and your affiliation so that
we can make sure, for purposes of the documentation, that the rest of the
community is able to fit your comment to who you are.  All of the
transcripts will be included and attached to the reports that are forwarded
so that we can be sure that we documented the comments and input that we've
received.
ROSS RADER:  ... just a quick question on the agenda.  You also have the --
on how to proceed on the topic of the competing and complimentary dispute
and -- mechanisms.
MARILYN:  Yes, we should take that up -- we should take that up real
quickly.  I was going to leave that until the end, but we may lose it if we
do that.  So let me entertain a proposal on that from you and from Jeff
(ph).
ROSS RADER (ph):  Well, you know, I think, you know, Jeff (ph), you can --
you can bounce in here at any point, but as I mentioned in the e-mail that I
circulated (ph) earlier today, there's -- in going through goals of what
both the registrars and the -- are proposing at this point at it relates to
the disputes/enforcements/resolution model around the policy, that there's
some pretty good similarities in where we want to take this.  And Dan's (ph)
suggestion that was standing (ph) should probably identify what those points
of similarity are.
It's struck me that rather than trying to figure out who's got the best
proposal at this point, that we simply agree that they're both good, but put
forward a unified document at this point.
JEFF NEUMAN : I actually agree with Ross (ph).  There are a lot of
similarities.  And I think as we go through the policy today, we'll find
this out.  And I think we can -- we can bang out a pretty good compromise.
MARILYN:  So maybe I could expect for -- to the group by say Monday at the
latest of next week -- Friday (ph) -- get something from you and Ross to the
group?
RADER (ph):  Yes.  Let's say (ph) -- business Monday absolutely guaranteed.
But Friday doesn't seem to be out of the question at this point.
If that's (ph) -- if there's a general agreement on that, I'm happy to move
ahead on those dates.
MARILYN:  OK.  That's great.  Any other items of business that the Task
Force wants to raise before we go to the open portion of the call?
JEFF NEUMAN : This is Jeff (ph), can I ask a question?  And it's just really
on the format of the document.  Ross (ph), you put out a separate document
entitled, "General Obligations and Provisions"?
RADER (ph):  Yes.
JEFF NEUMAN : Is that just stuff that's taken out from the whole document or
is that new?
RADER (ph):  Those are the -- essentially, it's a summary of things that
have fallen (ph) over (ph) the document -- that has continuing (ph)
conversations, conference calls, transcripts -- It's a general bucket of
here are the things (ph) that we need in place in order to make sure that
the policy is enforced ...  So certainly, it doesn't have official standing
as part of the base offering (ph) at this point.  We certainly need more
discussion around those points -- to be forwarded and proceed on it.
JEFF NEUMAN : OK -- I'm sorry, I missed -- just because of the background
noise, and people dropping off.  But you're basically saying that you
basically -- you pulled this out of transcripts and from the base document
to just -- like a summary or...
RADER (ph):  It's the general here -- let's put it -- let's put my arms
around all of these outline issues that needs to be dealt with in order to
enact a policy, get them all in one place, and then we can deal with them as
one document rather than 50 or 60 -- issues.
JEFF NEUMAN : So if this were like a report, you'd put this as your
recommendation?  More like a -- I'm trying to think of a way -- business
(ph).
RADER (ph):  It's certainly -- it's -- statement to the actual processes
contemplated in the IRDX (ph) document.  In other words, if these conditions
can't be fulfilled, then you cannot execute the processes, so make sure
you've got all the ingredients before you bake a cake.
JEFF NEUMAN : Is all the stuff in the actual other documents at this point?
RADER (ph):  Some of it's implied, some of it's not, some of it is.
MARILYN:  It's Marilyn.  Can I ask you and Ross (ph) to do this particular
discussion and I'll join you, if need be, and we can figure out what the --
forward.  But I think the rest of the folks are going to be locked in this
particular discussion.
JEFF NEUMAN ::  Yes -- no, I agree.  I just -- people are going to be
commenting on this document and the Task Force haven't even seen it yet.
Yes, I don't...
MARILYN:  The Task Force hasn't seen what document yet?
JEFF NEUMAN : This document -- this new document called "General Obligations
and Provisions".
MARILYN:  The Task Force hasn't seen the General Obligations and Provision
documents.  I -- there are four documents posted -- it was posted on the
10th (ph) to this -- to the Task Force.
RADER (ph):  Right.
MARILYN:  This is one of the documents.
JEFF NEUMAN :):  Understood.  But...
MARILYN:  OK.
JEFF NEUMAN :... that's yesterday.  Oh -- it was last night.
RADER (ph):  You know, just to be explicit on that point, Jeff (ph), you
know (ph) these all -- all of these documents have document (ph) status (ph)
attached to them.  This one is pending acceptance as a proposal to the group
(ph) even though it's taken from all of our prior discussions, it certainly
doesn't have that same official proposal standing as the -- as the base
(ph) --so it's, you know, I wouldn't expect anybody to be able to talk to it
on a -- basis yet, but we need to get up to that curve.
JEFF NEUMAN : Right.  So, I guess my suggestion would be let's -- if we can
keep today's -- because we're going to have other open calls, if we can keep
today's comments to the main base document and even -- well, even the other
two have kind of been around -- and then the next call we talk about this
General Obligations and Provisions document.
RADER (ph):  Yes.  Certainly, you know, Marilyn can, you know, she's the
chair, so she can make the call.  But it was my impression that we're
actually -- you know, not only talk about the specific policy matters
contained in the document, but -- new policy -- as it relates to trends
(ph).  So I'm more than happy to -- and sort of the opinion ...
MARILYN:  Let's see if we can make it simple for our guests who are on the
call.  So why don't we start with who's on the call, and then we will start
with the base document and see how we do on that.  But I also want to take
general topics from the people who are on the call.
So apologies to you guys for the fact we've been -- keeping (ph) on your
time.  Can I ask you just to identify yourself, your name, and who you're
with if you're not on the Task Force.
MICHEL (ph):  This is Denise Michelle (ph), I'm organizing a public
discussions session about the many (ph) transfers at the Shanghai --
meeting.
MARILYN:  Thanks, Denise (ph).
PAUL STUHARA This is Paul (ph) -- with.
ROBERT HALL (ph):  Robert Hall (ph) with ...
RICK WESSON  (ph), ALICE'S REGISTRY: .
STUBBS (ph):  Ken (ph).
BRUCE BECKWITH (ph),Vertisign:  Hi -- Bruce (ph) Beckworth (ph) with
Verisign(ph).
DAVID WASHER (ph):  You've got David Washer (ph) from the Registry (ph).
MARILYN:  OK.  I also have on my list, Wanda Ketteman (ph), Barbara Barnes
(ph), Frank Shilling (ph), Jennifer Giliam (ph)...
JENNIFER GILLIAM (ph):  Here.
MARILYN:  Hi, Jennifer (ph).  Brandon Payne (ph), Margie Millam (ph), Rosa
Thompson (ph), and Danny Younger (ph).  OK.
So we are missing some of the folks who are (ph) -- and hopefully, we will
still get them.  Why don't we go ahead and what I'm going to do is turn this
over to Ross (ph) later who has been leading certainly this sort of small
task force drafting effort.  And we would like to walk through the primary
document.  But before we do that, what I'd like to do is go back around the
group of attendees and ask you to make a, if you can, sort of a one-sentence
statement of what you think the most pressing issue is to you or what's
pressing concern is to you so that we can make sure we address that as we
walk through the rest of the hour-and-a-half (ph) we have together.  Denise
(ph), I'm going to start with you.  Anything in particular you want to raise
or is there a pressing (ph) issue that you want to be sure we address?
MICHEL(ph):  No.
MARILYN:  OK.  Rick (ph)?
WESSON (ph):  Thanks, Marilyn.  The one sentence (ph) is that we need a
reliable process for the registrars, registrants, and registries (ph) that's
all -- documented, that everyone understands their roles, relationships, and
duty process.  Currently, Alice's (ph) registry is not accepting transfers
because the process right now is undefined, undocumented and too darn
expensive.  And we don't feel (ph) -- two cents over wholesale cost either
so...
MARILYN:  That's very helpful.  Thank you, Rick (ph).
STUBBS (ph):  Marilyn, did you just ask for me?
MARILYN:  Yes.  I was just asking if our guests wants -- if there's any
particular area they'd want to highlight as something that's of particular
concern to them before we just start walking through the document.
STUBBS (ph):  I think to me, the most significant concern I would have is
making sure that we have a process that is clearly understood by the average
domain name holder.  I think it's extremely important to make sure that
people know how to use the system.  The purpose of transfers is to allow
someone who may not be currently happy with the party that's servicing their
contract to move to someone who is more satisfactory for them.  But at this
point in time, it's so confusing to most people that there's a reluctance to
do it because they really aren't certain it's going to be done in a way that
assures that they won't be a stoppage or additional charges.
MARILYN:  Good -- helpful.  Let's just keep going.  Paul (ph)?
PAUL STAHURA My biggest -- my biggest issue, I guess, would be auto (ph) --
and then my second thing, I don't know if it's appropriate for the Transfer
Task Force, but I think my ultimate -- you know, most of the problems are
with -- in my mind.
PAUL STAHURA: Most of the problems are with the Common Net (ph) registry,
which is RRP (ph)  Registry.  And I believe that, you know, a lot of it
would be simplified and made clearer or, you know, straightforward by
switching to the EPP (ph) Registry with off (ph) codes.  So my second issue
would be a schedule or when would that -- when might that happen?
MARILYN:  Excellent.  We will -- each step will, of course, be captured in
our transcripts.  That's an excellent point.  Let's keep going.  Who else do
I have?
HALL (ph):  My concern would be with the apparent authority question.  I
believe at the -- last update, you kind of punted at that and said rather
defining it, let's define who has the right to transfer.  And I would be
concerned of giving that right to anyone other than the registrar and ...So
I think the definition of who has the right to transfer has to be very
carefully nailed down to make sure it's not a third party.
MARILYN:  OK.  Who I've got next then?  I know I've got a couple more
people.
RAM MOHAN (ph), AFFILIAS REGISTRY:  Marilyn, this is Ram Mohan (ph).
BECKWITH (ph):  Hi, this Bruce (ph) Beckwith (ph), Marilyn.  I do have a
comment.
MARILYN:  Great, Bruce (ph) (ph).  Why don't we take you and then we'll go
to Ram (ph) and I'll see if anyone else has dialed in.
BECKWITH (ph):  OK.  Bear Stearns position is that rather than focus on how
to make this an efficient or easy process for registrars, that going to some
of what Ken Studd (ph) and Rob Hall (ph) have said, we're much more
interested in making sure that this a legitimate process for customers.  And
so our focus would be to make sure that the registrant has the ability to
transfer registration but does in such -- is able to do it in a way that it
is meaningful to them and there's no question about how that transfer
occurred.
MARILYN:  OK.  Now, let's see, I have Jennifer (ph) on here and Ram (ph),
I'm going to get to you.  But I want to do David (ph), and Jennifer (ph),
and then come back to you.  Jennifer GILLIAM (ph):  Just a follow up (ph)
for the -- transferred.
GILLIAM (ph):  Just the different problems with the -- being transferred.
MARILYN:  So could you be -- delays, or confusion, or denials, is that the
kind of thing you're talking about?
GILLIAM (ph):  Yes.
MARILYN:  OK.  Good.  And David (ph)?
WASCHER (ph):  Yes, mine would be fairly common to what everybody else is
saying.  But I'm also looking for something that's enforceable that when
there are problems or when things aren't being handled correctly between the
registrars, that there's some governing piece of legislation, from our
standpoint, that allows some recourse.  Because that's been our major
problem is that we can't even get certain items from the registrars when a
transfer has been done wrongly, or inadvertedly, or questionable, or
something like that.
And then the second one would be the apparent authority.  It would -- that's
the other question.
JEFF NEUMAN : Marilyn, this is Jeff (ph).  May I ask you a question on that?
I think that's a good comment.
MARILYN:  You can ask me a question, but hold on just a minute.
And we have -- I think we're going to have a few questions.  David (ph), say
more about apparent authority and then I want to go to Rahm (ph), and then I
want to take questions from the Task Force for all of you.
WASCHER (ph):  OK.  The apparent authority, and I understand what
everybody's saying from a registrant standpoint, but from our standpoint
dealing with telco's, our apparent authority is inadvertedly a third party,
especially when the telco's merge, and that original administrator is gone,
and the registrant only knows about a telco.  So that's where I'm coming
from an apparent authority standpoint.
MARILYN:  So you are acting as what I would call a -- like a -- if a telco
has been operating like a corporate registrar service as an intermediary?
WASCHER (ph):  Basically, yes, because these are the ones that have been
offering the dial up, have been offering the Web host thing, and all that
kind of stuff.
MARILYN:  Right -- OK.  Rob (ph), and then we want to take questions from
the task force for everyone.
RADER (ph) (?):  Just a clarification on that, David (ph), when you're
talking about governing legislation, you mean lower case (ph) G, lower case
(ph) L, i.e. a higher rule, not necessarily government legislation.
WASCHER (ph):  Correct, Ross (ph).  I'm just talking about some committee
that we will abide by as a constituency ideal so that when that committee
comes down and says, why have you not produced this paperwork, there is some
response.
RADER (ph):  OK...the FCC (ph), right?
HALL (ph) (?):  Marilyn, are you saying "Rob" or something else...
MARILYN:  I was saying, "Ross".  I'm going to get myself into trouble
because I was making Jeff (ph) wait.
RADER (ph):  I'm sorry, Jeff (ph).
MARILYN:  OK.  Ram (ph) and then -- who haven't I gotten?  I need Ram Mohan
(ph)...
HALL (ph):  Marilyn, it's Rob Hall (ph), I have one other comment, too, just
when you're done, if I can.
MARILYN:  OK.  So let's do Ram (ph), and then let's do you, and then open it
up to other questions.
MOHAN (ph):  Sure.  This is Ram Mohan (ph) from Affiliate Registry for Dot
Info (ph).  One way -- I heard the conversation on apparent authority, one
of the requests that has come through -- come to me directly from a few
registrars is that potentially, especially in a pick (ph) registry that
implements EPP (ph) to potentially find a way by which a leading (ph)
registrar can supply an -- the authorization code -- the auth (ph) code, can
supply that, and get a response back from the registry that says, "this is
valid".  And in that way, verify that the registrant who gave you that
information actually gave you the correct information.  So there is a
mechanism there. The second point I had to make was referring to the
legislation as in lower case L and to say that, you know, we've --
constituencies will abide by a higher rule.  My comment there is that
without the force of some sort of law behind it, enforcement becomes really
tricky.
MARILYN (?):  When -- but let's -- can you -- would you tell us what you
mean by "law"?
MOHAN (ph):  Well, if legislation is meant here as a -- as the way Ross (ph)
was trying to guide (ph) it, Ross (ph) is saying it's a higher rule.  It's
something that we all can -- constituencies get together and say, we shall
abide by this code of honor.  It's hard to enforce it.
MARILYN:  A code of conduct -- and since it's policy, there's consistent
policy which is enforced through the accreditation agreements and contracts.
Does that fit into the authority?
MOHAN (ph):  Yes, that does fit in.
MARILYN:  OK.  I do want to -- Rob (ph)?
HALL (ph):  Yes.  I had one other quick comment, Marilyn...
... and I thank you for letting me go twice.  I want to be very careful that
we don't put into place anything that takes the human override or the human
element out of it.  So I realize that we deal in a very automatic world, but
there are cases when you know something's wrong in a specific instance --
someone transfers, and you need the ability to stop it or to override it.
And I don't want to take that last resort of a human looking at it and
saying, this is wrong, away.  I'm not suggesting that a human has to look at
every transfer.  But there are cases when we get called saying, "I don't
want to do this.  Stop this."  And we need to be able to override it.  We
also have cases of certain registrars we know, you know, at this point, we
should not be transferring to -- and we need the ability to stop that.  And
it can be a very manual process, but there needs to be some override.
MARILYN:  I'm -- to hear what the last comment means, but let me open this
up to the task force for questions and, Jeff (ph), you're first.
JEFF NEUMAN : OK -- thanks.
I guess it was David (ph) who kind of tacked on to what Ross (ph) was
saying, and I think it was you that said it should be enforced in a
meaningful way.  There should be some sort of legislation.  Who -- in -- and
you also made mention of a committee.  My question to you is who should do
the enforcing?  Is it Icam (ph), is it individual registry's, is it, you
know, a committee that you refer to of just miscellaneous people like kind
of a dispute resolution committee?  That's the first question.  The second
question related to that is who's the appropriate party to bear the cost of
such enforcement?
And then a question for Rob (ph), is you said you don't want to take the
human element out, which I agree with.  But how would it change if the human
element was added after the actual transfer so that it was, you know, it was
basically assumed that a transfer would go through and then it would be up
for the losing (ph) registrar to try to pose some kind challenge after but
they can't block the transfer from taking place?
MARILYN:  So let me just be clear, what you're saying is there would be a
recovery mechanism.  Is that right?
JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.  There would be a human recovery mechanism after the
fact.  And I can go into some more about that in talking about EPP, but I'd
really like to hear from David (ph) and Rob (ph).
MARILYN:  Yes.  Can I just ask you to clarify for all of us, when you say a
"recovery", meaning that the transfer would've actually taken -- completely
taken place?
JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.
MARILYN:  But you're envisioning a mechanism to be transferred back again?
JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.
MARILYN:  An appeal or some other decisional authority.
JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.  And before...
... yes, and before this conversation goes a little bit too far, let me also
say to Rob (ph), I'm also assuming that if someone's subject to UDRP (ph) or
something is -- someone hasn't paid, the registrar can always put something
online (ph).  So, you know, I'm talking about other situations where the
apparent authority is disputed.
MARILYN:  And so you had questions for David (ph) and for Rob Hall (ph),
right?
JEFF NEUMAN:    Yes.
WASCHER (ph):  Yes, I guess where I was thinking of from that standpoint is,
I would first say, let's take a look at the registries (ph) for the specific
extension, let the registry come up with a way for us to be able to
basically manhandle -- keep this between the registrars, allow them to set
the policy that all of us would abide by.  That if there was a dispute on a
transfer one way or the other, that we could take it up to the registry
level.  They have the ability to, behind our -- I wouldn't say behind our
backs, but they have the ability to move that domain name from one registrar
to another.
If we can't come up with something and everybody's right about between
registrars as a code of conduct is very difficult to get going.  Look how
long it's taking us to do our one that we haven't even completed yet.
So it's got to come up from another level.  I mean, the only thing I can
think of at this point in time would be to go to the registry level.  If
they don't wan to incur the cost of what that would be, then maybe we do
need to set some other governing body between the registrars that would talk
to the registry, that would have some influence.  It's almost similar to the
UDRP type deal that would -- that could help the smaller registrars and/or
the larger registrars to get the domain where they're supposed to go.  If
there is a problem in rectifying who the real owner is, or if it was
transferred inadvertedly, that kind of stuff.
MARILYN:  OK.  Rob (ph), comments?
HALL (ph):  I sure will and I'll try and say my last name every time because
we have a Ram (ph), and Ross (ph), and Rob (ph) on the call, so it's
probably confusing for everybody.  It's Rob Hall (ph).  My comment is the
situation you proposed was, you know, regaining it back after the transfer
happens.  Remember that transfers are applied for and then can take five
days to actually happen.  There are cases where we get a call from the user
who has sometimes been sent an e-mail saying, this is about to transferred,
that say, "stop this, make it -- no, I don't want to go through with this."
So we often know before the transfer actually takes place.  While a recovery
mechanism would be great, there are times when we need to be able to stop a
transfer.  And I never want to have to tell a client, I'm sorry, I have to
approve this.  You know, I don't know what you did with that other
registrar, but I'm in no position to stop this by my contact.  And I -- and
I shutter at the word "legislation".  I'm assuming Ross is talking -- Ross
Rader (ph) is talking about contractual implementation of this not
legislation.
RADER (ph):  Yes.
HALL (ph):  But the -- I shutter at me (ph) taking the absolute last resort
human element out of this.  So automate all of it, but give us a way to say,
look, this is wrong, or something needs to be looked at more closely here.
Let's just stop things until we figure out what's going on.  OK.
JEFF NEUMAN:  And (INAUDIBEL) I have to follow up with this.
MARILYN (?):  Sure.  Go ahead.
JEFF NEUMAN:  ... Oh, now?  OK.  The follow up to David (ph), it would be --
that you'd like to take it to the individual registry level.  Are you just
talking about certain things that re in the contract now?  For example, you
know, if a gaining registrar -- registrar is not providing the documentation
that the losing registrar asked for?  Or are you talking about actual
disputes?  One registrar says there was a paying authority, the other says
there's not and the registry should resolve that?
WASCHER (ph):  Both cases.
JEFF NEUMAN:  OK.  With respect to cost, I mean, the registry view (ph) --
well, first of all, the registry view in the latter case, in the last case
would be that the registry's don't want to be in a position between choosing
between two registrars when they have equally good arguments.  But it really
doesn't have the time or the resources to engage in that kind of thing.  And
it doesn't want to be put in a position between it's customers.
But with the former, with certain things about providing documentation, I
think some registry's, I can't speak for all, but some registry's realize
that that does fall within their mandate to enforce those types of
requirement (ph).
With -- and with respect to Rob (ph), how -- the question I have, is how
often -- because obviously, there's a lot of what people have been calling
"gaming" (ph) going on at the registrar level with respect to preventing
transfers by the NACK Tool. The question I have for you is, you say there
are these circumstances where you have customers that say, you know, stop a
transfer.  I didn't mean to do what I did.  How prevalent do you think that
is in comparison to the other situation that we've seen where registrar's
have -- just because they want to prevent a transfer?
HALL (ph):  I think -- let me clear about my one -- my one example.  It was
not, I want to stop the transfer because I didn't mean to go to this other
registrar.  It's more often, I don't know anything about this transfer, stop
it.
So what we do see, unfortunately is, and Marilyn, I'll hopefully clarify my
earlier statement here for you, is there are registrars out there whose
systems are maybe not as robust to catching these and apply for transfers.
And there have been cases where we have simply said, we will not allow a
transfer to this registrar until they clean up their systems.
Now, I'm thankful to report that in the one bad case we had of this, the
registrar wasn't aware of it.  We were able to fix their systems, close the
loophole, and we now allow transfer to them again.  But, you know, on an
individual basis, it's often a phone call from a customer saying, I've
gotten your e-mail about this being transferred away.  I didn't do this.
Stop this.  And that, we need to be able to respond to, not in an automated
fashion, but on a one off (ph) because we've got a frustrated client who's
trying to undo something.
You know, I would have to say it's pretty rare.  I don't know if we've ever
heard of the case of, oh, yes, I went to another registrar.  I paid for it,
I applied to transfer, and now I want you to stop it.  That we haven't seen.
And, you know, we're talking about the vast minority.  You know, I would
probably say below one or two percent of the cases.   I'm worried about
putting something into place that binds us, that we're powerless.
JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.  Well, and this is Jeff (ph), I'm actually very
sympathetic to that.  I'm just, you know, as a task force, we're trying to
figure out what we can -- you know, we're trying to figure out the best
solution for the most amount of people.
HALL (ph):  I absolutely agree.  I'm just trying to say, remember that there
are one offs (ph) that we need to deal with, and there has to be a way to
deal with that.  It may be a totally manual process where registrars need to
talk with the registry, et cetera, et cetera.  But don't bind us to
something we can't deal with the small percentage of people that are a real
problem in our -- in the back (ph) ...
MARILYN:  I think, Rob (ph), if I would describe -- I would capture that
under a category of there would be some exceptions, and there needs to be a
process and a knowledge process for how to deal with exceptions.
HALL (ph):  That would be perfect, Marilyn.
RADER (ph):  Well, I'm thinking of a follow up question for you.  It's ...
  Marilyn, if I can just get into -- would that be good?
MARILYN (?):  Sure.  Let me -- let me just see who else wants to speak.  We
know you do, that would be Ross Rader (ph).  Who else?
JEFF NEUMAN:  Marilyn -- comment?
DANNY YOUNGER (ph):  Dan Younger (ph), too.
MARILYN:  Dan, all right.
YOUNGER (ph):  I'll be last.  Somebody else (INAUDIBLE).
MARILYN:  Anyone else?
WASCHER (ph):  Go ahead and put me on the list.  This is David (ph) again.
MARILYN:  Good.  So let's start with Ross (ph), we'll do Grant (ph), we'll
do Dan, and then we'll do David (ph) again.
RADER (ph):  OK.  Well, just -- if the -- if there was a facility (ph)
available whereby, you know, transfer us (ph) from Registrar A to Registrar
B against the wishes of the registrar.  And if there was a process in place
whereby the registrar would incur no cost, it would lose their resolution.
And you wouldn't be able to get the name back quickly.  Would that diminish
that concern or would that concern still be big in your mind?
HALL (ph):  I think that would be a good step forward to say I can get the
domain back on behalf of client or Registrar A on behalf of my client.  I
don't know how you would say that there's no diminishing of service if -- to
the time it's in Registrar B and it would be an S (ph) service, for example,
could be changed.  And I would never want to be able -- to have to be on the
phone telling a client that yes, the domain was a client for a transfer
today, and in four days it's going to that other registrar.  Sure, there's a
way to get back, but I can't stop this process. And I think Marilyn's hit
the head on the -- the nail on the head is this is -- these are exceptional
type circumstances.  I just wanted everybody to be aware that they do exist
and they do happen, you know, almost on a daily basis.
Ross (ph), I think in one of your e-mails, you said that you were dealing
with about 100 cases of transfers that were exceptional type circumstances
at any given time.  So getting a domain back is not as good as a resolution
as stopping what's wrong before you see it.
RADER (ph) (?):  Yes.  And I guess, you know, my question -- you know a) to
what degree is this enforcement issue, and b) to what degree are the
exceptions really, you know, as opposed to part of the default standard
operating procedure.  So, thanks.
HALL (ph):  You're welcome.  And I would -- you cleverly said, "no cost to
the registrant", I'm assuming you mean the registrar as well?
RADER (ph):  Oh, absolutely -- yes.
HALL (ph):  OK.  Now does that also mean that the task force is
contemplating backing out the two years it would be added by transferring
away and back?
JEFF NEUMAN:  Rob (ph), is that no cost to the registry?
HALL (ph):  Well, these are issues I'm not sure you have answers for.  But,
you know, there is a cost to the -- both the registry and the -- well,
actually, there is a cost just for the registrar for a domain that is
transferred to Registrar B and then back to A.  One would have lost revenue
from that client for those two years because now they've got a domain at the
registry that has been extended by two years and they've done nothing.  So
the registry does lose the revenue from that domain.
RADER (ph) (?):  As a matter (ph) of -- currently, right.
HALL (ph):  Right.  So, it would be, you know, easy a game of system of
transfer to Registrar B and then I'd phone A and say, I didn't mean to, and
I get two years out of my domain.  So keep that in mind, too.
RADER (ph) (?):  OK.
MARILYN:  Apples to apples.
RADER (ph) (?):  ... business plan, but anyway.
GRANT (ph):  I guess I have a question first for this discussion.  If we
acknowledge that the situation that's being discussed here is a minority,
and I think it's one of those -- it may well be one of those situations (ph)
of (ph) balance (ph), and my question to the registrars is which sort of
action do we see more of?  An action whereby someone mistakenly loses --
mistakenly initiates a transfer process whereby they want -- and
subsequently, they wish to stop it in the tracks?  Or a situation where
someone else transfers it away from it?  In other words, let's get some
perspective here as to which -- what's the main problem we need to protect?
And if there are, you know, consequence of that, a weakening process for
some other situation, then dependent upon which one we come across more, we
may have to accept that weakness.

Having said that, looking through the process that we have outlined in the
paper, there is two times that the registering will be -- or given an
opportunity to confirm the transcript.  One, by the gaining registrar and
one b the losing registrar.  So if the losing registrar seeks confirmation
from the registrant.  And at that stage (ph), the registrant decides that
for whatever reason, the transfer -- he does not wish the transfer to
proceed, then the registrant -- at that stage, pull the ...Then does that
not cover the situation that you're outlining here?

HALL (ph):  This is Rob (ph) -- and yes, I agree, it does.  It should be a
footnote.  I didn't mean to make this the primary issue.  So my initial
comment was the apparent (ph) authority really is where I was more
concerned.  I just wanted to place this as a footnote.  I think it's been
discussed probably way too much for this call.
HALL (ph):  Sure.
MARILYN:  Are you -- now, Grant (ph), does that help?  I would've basically
said I felt -- I think there's actually three -- is a mistakenly initiate
that wants to back away from it.  There's a, what we call, the -- and then
there's the other issue, which we think should be the majority of problems
we're trying to solve with having a standard I's (ph) and accepted adhere to
transfer policy and that is, someone has -- there is a request for a
transfer.  It is being questioned by the other registrar and so there's
delay, et cetera.  And the registrant is in the meantime, everyone is sort
of caught in -- because there's not a clear topic that decides what should
happen and then an appeals process.  And I think we thought that most of the
problems we would be addressing fall in the third category, recognizing that
there are some -- instances but hoping that they -- if we can identify, that
those would be addressed by these formal processes as well.
We had Dan and we had David (ph) who both were going to comments.  Dan?
YOUNGER (ph):  OK, Dan (ph) is here.  I managed to stay on the call so far
and not get dropped off.
As usual, Grant (ph) says everything I want to say before I say it.  I just
wanted to put myself in the queue (ph), but I'm still looking for sort of
ideas (ph)...
JEFF NEUMAN:  I'm sorry.  I can't hear who's speaking.  Could you speak much
louder, please?
YOUNGER (ph):  OK.  I'll give it my best shot.
I put myself in the queue, because I'm trying to get still an idea of scale
and scope of these problems that Grant was asking.  What's more important?
People -- the system, people making mistakes -- I would -- I think we were
talking about perhaps the need for intervening some sort of what they
call -- legislation.  And I always like to keep balanced the need for
legislation with a perceived harm of who's getting harmed and what is the
level of that harm?
So can somebody give me an idea of just how prevalent all these problems
are?
MARILYN:  So what do we hear from some of the folks on the call like David
(ph), and maybe Jennifer (ph), Bruce (ph) (ph), Paul (ph), Rob (ph) and we
know -- we're not asking you for an absolute count, but what's your view?
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  Marilyn, this is Christine (ph), I'd be happy to speak to
that from a registry standpoint.
MARILYN:  Thanks, Christine (ph).  you want to start?
CHRISTINE RUSSO  Oh -- OK.  Sorry.  I didn't mean to cut anyone off.  But
let me first say that I think all the issues are -- well, I would like to
think all the issues are exceptions, because we have to remember that there
are millions and millions of -- out there and millions of successful
transfers. But from a registry perspective and being in the compliance
office, judging by the complaints I get, boy, I just have to say that I
don't think any one of those problems is prevalent than the other.  I
absolutely think that I get an equal balance of each of the problems we've
just outlined.
CHRISTINE RUSSO This is coming from I'll just say, my registry of customers.
YOUNGER (ph):  Can you give me an idea of just how much this is -- the
percentage of the total number of (INAUDIBLE)?
CHRISTINE RUSSO You know, I can't because like I say, people don't always --
how can I say this?  There are many more problems out there that don't get
reported I'm sure than do.  So, you know, I couldn't really give you a valid
number.
JEFF NEUMAN: I can give a number for, you know, not -- is and Value S (ph)
actually, which is not -- well, I can't (ph), but just to give you an idea.
It hasn't been a problem with our -- with the EPP registries we have.  None
of this, actually.  We've had thousands of transfers and not -- and we've
had three total knacks (ph) out of those thousands.  And those knacks (ph)
were for legitimate reasons of not payment, or there was a UDRP, or
something like that.
PAUL STAHURA: That doesn't mean there's no problems, because they're
problems that occur before the request is transmitted to the EPP registry.
For example, a registrar might not be giving out the authorization codes.
JEFF NEUMAN: Right.  Paul (ph), I was actually getting into that.  But those
problems that were mentioned were at least non-existent in the biz (ph) in
U.S.  But you're right.  There are other issues, which we go into in the
paper -- in the -- in the base paper about some issues that you arise.  And
we kind of put in some best practices about getting the auth (ph) code out.
MARILYN:  And let me do something for the transcriptionist.  That was Jeff
Neuman (ph) who commented about .US.biz (ph) and who was it that was the
last comments (ph) before Jeff (ph) responded?  Was that Paul (ph)?
PAUL STAHURA: I interrupted.    But I think you were talking about Christine
Russo's MARILYN:  No, I have Christine (ph).  I just wanted to be sure that
the...
PAUL STAHURA: It was me.
MARILYN:  That's Paul .  Thank you.  We have Dan.  Is that it or do you want
to raise anything else?
I wonder if we shouldn't hear from some of the other folks, like Jennifer
(ph) or David (ph) in response to Dan's question about what do you think
about the scope and scale?
GILLIAM (ph):  This is Jennifer (ph).  I'm on the side.  I'm actually
working for the telephone company that helps the customers register their
domains and put in, you know, for their transfers.  And I'd say about a
third of the transfers that, you know, go through, go through with the
problems and the other two-thirds go through funds.  But we've just seen a
lot of -- the transfers that we put through have to be put in four, and
five, six times before, you know, anything's responded to on them.
MARILYN:  OK.  Anyone else want to comment?
JEFF NEUMAN:... just to follow up.
JEFF NEUMAN Are you, Jennifer (ph), you don't -- I don't want to know which
registrars, but do you generally do it through one registrar or through
multiple registrar's?  Just to get an idea.
GILLIAM (ph):  Through one.
JEFF NEUMAN OK.  You have a relationship with one registrar.  OK.
WASCHER (ph):  This is David (ph), I would say probably a good 30 percent
overall of the transfers are denied, or either no response, or there is
absolutely nothing sent to the registrant and/or the -- to the
administrator.  So we end up having to put them back -- either automatically
or tell the registrant to go and review whatever the problems are and/or get
in contact with the previous registrar and work out with them what the
problem is.
MARILYN:  David (ph), can I -- I need to ask you a question about that.
Nothing sent to the registrant, does that mean that the registrant may have
inaccurate -- data or there's a gap, there's some inaccuracy on how they
should be contacted?
WASCHER (ph):  I think it's a little of both actually.  Mostly it's because
of inaccurate who is (ph) data.  But you have to keep in mind that from our
standpoint, the registrant went and got a -- they didn't ask necessarily for
a domain name.  They asked for a website.
MARILYN:  Right.
WASHER (ph):  And when they got the Web site, they got a domain name.  And
they don't correlate one without the other.
WASCHER (ph):  They -- know one type of entity.
So when they get this response, more than likely, they don't understand what
it is because they've never dealt with the domain name.  So it becomes --
and they may not have even updated their who is (ph) data.  From our
standpoint, from a telco standpoint dealing with multiple telcos across the
United States, if one were to be swapped over from one ISP to another ISP,
the domain names don't necessarily get updated, that's the last thing on
their mind.  And all the e-mails will change.
MARILYN:  Yes.  Ken (ph), are you still on the phone?  Ken Stubbs?  This is
an area that we are dealing with in the Who Is (ph) Task Force as a -- one
of the reasons that a lot of the data is inaccurate is what I call "agents".
And it's not on the mind of the registrant. They -- you described very
clearly one of the problems that we're seeing there.
So the 30 percent that are denied, Ken (ph) and I -- could I -- I don't mean
to put words in your mouth or in Jennifer's (ph), but do I assess that this
is a big customer satisfaction issue?
WASHER (ph):  Very much so.
PAUL STAHURA: Marilyn, I have a comment as well.
If -- regarding the who is and transfers, I don't know if it's appropriate
to address it in the transfer sense (ph) portion of it.  Who is -- where?
But after transfer completes and the losing registrar needs to get the who
is information from the gaining registrar, there's problems with that,
because -- registrar sent (ph) different formats for the who is output.  And
in fact, you know -- changed the format on the fly for certain other
reasons.
But we don't want to, you know, screw up the who is -- the transfer.  For
example, if we lose a name, we want to make sure that the who is information
gets to the gaining registrar accurately and on time (ph).
So that should be -- that's another problem that needs to be addressed.
After the transfer happens, what about the who is information?  How can I
get it or give it?  Should we have XML format or what?  And maybe the new
who is specification can help us on that.
MARILYN:  Paul (ph), I might as you in particular and any others who are
interested in this issue to note that the Who Is Task Force will also have a
draft report out relatively soon, and that we are also very interested in
outreach from that taskforce.  So when you see that notice, maybe we could
make sure that some of you could participate in a conversation with the Who
Is Task Force on this issue.
PAUL STAHURA I have another comment about David's (ph) comment.
And that we also experienced a lot of -- I don't know the percent, but I
would say it's over 30 percent, where we think we have the, you know, the
authority from the registrant (ph) to initiate the transfer.  And then we
initiate the transfer and it's denied by the losing registrar.  And then the
registrant calls up and says, I really want to transfer it.  I talked to the
losing registrar, they won't let it go, and we keep initiating it over and
over and over -- multiple times to try to get the name to come over.  And I
think that's -- in my mind, that's a big problem for ...
MARILYN:  Seeing that in the postings that -- I'm trying to think of his
name now, but there's a -- the gentlemen who has been posting to the task
force about several complaints about the same nature.  And that would sound
to me, Paul (ph), like the issue there is there's no place to appeal.
There's no process to say, look, I followed the checklist.  The name is not
being released.  What's the appeal process to resolve it to the satisfaction
of the registrant, that they end up with the registrar they're looking for.
PAUL STAHURA: Right.
MARILYN:  Did I -- did, David (ph), is there -- let me just go back to you.
Is there anything final that you want to say before we kind of press (ph)
on?
WASCHER (ph):  I wanted to readdress the issue that Jeff (ph) has brought
when I was commenting about some type of registry authority.  And I wanted
to give you and Jeff (ph) both a real specific case to help with my point.
And that is a domain name called Meta (ph) Life -- LIFE.com (ph) that we
had.  And at one point in time, it got transferred in network (ph)
solutions.  At the time it got transferred, it was given to another company
called Meta (ph) File -- FILE, who is data shows Meta (ph) Life, which is
incorrect, and their e-mail address for the administrator is
no.valid.email@worldnet.com (ph).
Now the registrant that I had, had registered it -- if you look at my who is
on registry.com, shows that it was registered for seven years.  Even though
I have gone repeatedly in the last year to try to get the appropriate
documentation that the -- that we are supposed to be able to get as a losing
registrar, I never got it after a year.  The registrant has called this
company and found out that it is -- they didn't even know that they had the
domain name.
So, Jeff (ph), that's where I'm coming from is that we are at a standstill.
I get no response from anybody about this specific domain, so where else do
you go to?  You can't go to ICANN because they're not going to do anything
about it.  And the registrant has totally lost his name, it is not in his
name anymore, so he has absolutely no recourse to get this domain name back.
JEFF NEUMAN :OK.  Let me ask you a question, this is Jeff.  your
complaint -- I mean obviously from the merit, from the merit that your
complaint is that you need -- you'd like to go to registry because you
haven't gotten any documentation about the losing registrar?
WASCHER (ph):  Correct.
JEFF NEUMAN: OK.  But as far as the actual dispute, even if the -- like lets
say the registry steps in and forces the registrar -- the losing registrar
to present the documentation, at that point as the documentation is
presented, then who -- then who hears this dispute?
WASCHER (ph):  Well, I guess that's the other piece.  That would have to be
determined from the task force is when there is something like this, how
does it get resolved?  I don't think anybody knows.
MARILYN:  And let me just clarify, David (ph), I think in this case, you
were the losing registrar, is that not right?
WASCHER (ph):  Correct.
MARILYN:  Yes, right.  I want to be sure, Jeff (ph), that that was -- well,
any...
STUBBS (ph):  ... this is Ken Stubbs.  Can you put me into queue on this
specifically (ph)?
MARILYN:  Sure, I certainly can.  And I hear someone else earlier.  I didn't
mean to cut them off.
HALL (ph):  Marilyn, this is Rob (ph).  I wanted to talk to it as well.
MARILYN:  Oh, good.  Well, let me put Rob (ph), because I heard you first.
So you and then Ken (ph).
HALL (ph):  OK.  I hate to regress, I was mocking (ph) the old issue.
There's another reason we see that I don't think has been talked about other
than just a registrant not wanting their domain transfer, is we see a lot of
fraud going on where domains are being stolen.  I think that's what the
gentlemen was just talking about is a stolen domain.
We have sent out over 200 requests for proof of transfer to different
transfers in the last year.  I have not ever seen one come back to me
saying, here's the proof.  So, whatever solution we've put in place, whether
the registry mandates that, or what have you, that's go to be some mechanism
that we agree on what the proof is and timely delivery of it.
MARILYN:  Ken (ph), are you commenting on this issue or...
STUBBS:  Well, there's a couple of things.  First of all, what we have to
decide working with ICANN and the registry is whether or not adherent to
this specific -- that the specific criteria is a requirement under the
registry/registrar contractual relationship or whether or not the adherence
is a requirement under the ICANN Accreditation Agreement.  That will pretty
well mandate where the -- what -- under what jurisdiction the resolution is
providing.
And I think if we can't establish that from the very beginning, we're going
to run into a very serious problem down the road because if I was the
registry, I would say, now, well wait a minute.  Compliance there is an
obligation to have under the Accreditation Agreement with ICANN, and I don't
feel that I should provide resources to ensure that you're complying with
the ICANN accreditation requirements.
So I think this is an issue that really needs to get resolved.  Thank you.
MARILYN:  Can I offer a user perspective and ask people to comment on it?
And I usually do not comment as the chair, but I'd like to, at this point,
comment about something that concerns me as a user. And David (ph), we act
as a corporate registrar who facilitates the registration of our corporate
customers, but we don't actually -- and we have a relationship with a
particular large registrar to do that.  We also register our own domain
names and then we have an ISP who also facilitates registration for their
ISP customers.  So we have sort of a business ISP, and a dial up ISP, and a
broadband ISP.
But as the business user, that's the hat I'd like to wear for just a minute,
we are -- we would be concerned about seeing different processes and
procedures across the different GTLVs (ph).
So if that makes sense to anyone -- although some people thought that
innovation could take place at the registry level in terms of what the --
whether there was -- theory (ph).  And there was something else, the saying
(ph) that the well-known branch (ph) holders, the companies that we were a
part of didn't actually like the differences, because it caused confusion
internally to the staff who had to interact with customers who were trying
to do the registration for the corporate employer.
And I just wanted to ask you guys a question, David (ph), and Jennifer (ph)
in particular, and maybe Rob (ph) and others, what your view is about if I
could call it, "standardization across the -- of processes across the gTLD
(ph) registry?
WASCHER (ph):  This is David (ph), as far as from the registrar to the
registry, yes, the standard should be in such a way so that we can all
communicate correctly.  From a registrant to a registrar, I think the EPP
has somewhat standardized that aspect by having to have the key for the --
for somebody to come in and do -- and to do a transfer.  But I also think
that partly the registrar's, their business case also kind of handles how
they will do the transfer.  If they have a complicated process for doing it,
then maybe the registrant doesn't want to deal with that.  But from a
corporate standpoint, that process is probably more secure, has special
features in it that they need from a corporate standpoint.  So I think it --
you almost got to kind of blend it between the two business cases.
MARILYN:  Yes, I was focused more on standardization at the -- not between
the registry and registrar, but if we ended up recommending a appeals
process or UDRP like process or something of that nature, that I believe
business users would prefer to see a single solution applied.  So I think it
would be complicated to have all this -- if the registry does it and the
dot-biz (ph), dot-info (ph), dot-museum (ph) that the registry doesn't do it
and the dot-com (ph), dot-coop (ph), that that's what I mean about being
confusing.
WASCHER (ph):  Yes, I would -- I would agree to that.  That some form of
standard between the two, because we definitely see that transfers from one
registrar can't be done X amount of days before expiration, some can be done
after expiration, and it's made it to a point where registrant doesn't even
know when to even begin to do a transfer.
So some type of standard process from a high level could be established so
that they at least know what is going on.
MARILYN:  Denise (ph), are you still on the phone?
MICHEL:  Yes, I'm here.
MARILYN:  Can I sort of put you on the spot and ask you to kind of speculate
about that issue of -- sort of -- maybe I should call it "consistency",
maybe instead of standardization because that really may mean something
else.  But could I ask you to comment about your thoughts about consistency
in terms of processes from a registrant point of view?
MICHELLE (ph):  Well, speaking personally and not as the person organizing
the transfer session (ph), from my own experience as an individual
registrant, consistency and standardization is good obviously.  If simpler
and more streamline, you can make it for your individual customers, the
easier it is for us to use the system.
JEFF NEUMAN Can I jump into queue.
MARILYN:  Yes, I'd love for people to.  I'd really would love for people to
comment on that side.  So Jeff (ph), I've got you and I don't know --
Jennifer (ph), if you wanted to comment first before we went to Jeff (ph)?
GILLIAM (ph):  No, I agree with what Dave was saying.
MARILYN:  Jeff (ph), you're on.

JEFF NEUMAN: Oh -- OK.  I mean, I would generally agree with everyone that
standardization is really good.  But people -- we also have to realize that
for let's say for VeriSign registry to implement an EPP solution at this
point in time would be extremely costly.  And, you know, although they've
committed this at some point in the future without EPP (ph), you know, we
can't expect this to happen over night.
And so what people need to consider is that registry's are by their nature
different.  And so, while to the extent we can standardize things like
possibly between Biz (ph) and Info (ph) and other EPP registry's, we have to
also recognize that other registry's will have different systems and we'll
have to find a way to deal with that.
MARILYN:  Jeff (ph), I have...
RADER (ph):  ... Jeff (ph).
JEFF NEUMAN:  I'm sorry?
RADER (ph):  I just had a question for you.  I was going to ask Marilyn to
put me into queue.
MARILYN:  Sure, I will.  I have a question for you, though, Jeff (ph).  I
have to tell you that your answer doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense
to me as it applies to the question I was asking.  Although I think it made
sense in a broader (ph) perspective.
But I think my question was more about standard timeframes, and I think you
were -- you were going to the broader issue for -- total standardization?
Yes, so -- then I take it from your response that you said that there would
be some areas where standardization could work in the areas of standard
timeframes or other kinds of things that you could see some merit in that.
JEFF NEUMAN :Well, I think timeframes is one of those that can be
standardized, and I think they already are standardized, at least it's --
between -- in a registry/registrar (ph) agreement, timeframes are
standardized.  Everything else as far as EPP, authcode (ph), different ways
of establishing apparent (ph) authority, that at this point is not
standardized.
MARILYN:  I'm under the impression that having received some of these
notices from various people whom I no longer have a relationship with
advising me that I'm going to lose my domain name from them if I don't
immediately take action with them, that in fact, there are some situations
where registrars don't let a name be transferred like 30 days prior to it's
expiration or some period like that.
MARILYN (?):  Those are registrar rules, those aren't registry rules.
RADER (ph) (?):  Right.  But that's what she was asking for was what is the
registrant and the registrar type of standardization?
JEFF NEUMAN:  OK.  And I think that's right.  I think that I also heard --
and I also heard Marilyn say that, you know, there's differences between
dot-coop (ph) and dot-com, and stuff...
MARILYN:  Right,  the two-part question and that would be like if there a
appeals process, or a UDRP (ph), or something like that that were put in
place, from a user perspective that I think there would be some --
unhappiness about having it being handled differently gTLDs
For those of us who have to register in multiple gTLDs (ph), we have no
choice because we have to defend our mark (ph) or we need to register
because we need to do business under that name and in that gTLD (ph).  I was
just suggesting that having a different fix it process in one gTLD verses
another, might be viewed by some as differentiation.  I believe business
users would think of it as confusion.  That was my point there, Jeff (ph).
And I just wondered how people felt about them, and I think we got into a
more granular discussion. But I had Ross who wanted to make a comment, and
then I want to actually go to the document, if we can, quickly.
RADER (ph):  Yes, just simply I was going to address similar distinctions
between standardization policy between registrars, and registry's, and
registrants and standardization of technology or implementation of that
policy.  So there's, you know, there's some -- there's various dimensions
and we shouldn't forget what we were talking about of -- standardization.
MARILYN:  Any last comment on this issue before we actually turn to the
primary document?
No, you've got 20 minutes and I think it could be well spent here.  This has
been extremely helpful.  I don't know how the rest of the task force feels
about this, but this is the kind of dialogue that we're really interested in
having with people who are in the trenches.
So, could I, Ross (ph), turn this to you?
RADER (ph):  You may indeed.
I'd also like to mirror (ph) Marilyn's thanks to our guests today.  It's
certainly, you know, it's always good to know when we're moving in the
direction, but we need to explore further other sorts of things.  So it's
good to have, you know -- base propositions, at least for me, as a registrar
reaffirment (ph) and continue to push this down that right track.
So to the document now, the base -- there's really four documents in the
bundle that I sent out, I guess it was yesterday now.  Let me just pull up
your names here.
HALL (ph) (?):  And where did you send the note to, Ross (ph)?
RADER (ph):  This was to the Transfer Task Force yesterday.
HALL (ph) (?):  So we're being asked to comment on documents that we haven't
seen?
MARILYN:  Rob (ph), the documents were posted to the Transfer Task Force and
I guess I thought -- and I apologize about this, but we -- because we had
asked folks in notifying you about the call, and maybe we weren't clear that
in addition to talking to you, we also wanted -- to get input on the
documents.
They are posted on the Transfer Task Force and we obviously can't expect you
to comment in detail because you haven't had a chance to read them.  But I
thought what we'd would have Ross do is kind of overview the documents for
you just at a very high level.  And that would then give people time to look
at the documents, and perhaps, come back to us with more comments.
HALL (ph):  So we'll get a copy of them soon, Marilyn is what you're saying
or...
RADER (ph):  Maybe I just could jump in on that, Rob (ph).  The documents
that we're talking about today are evolutions of the document that we've
been sharing with the constituency on, I guess, a -- couple of weeks or so.
So the base document here that we'll be discussing today is -- call, a
slightly more narrowed down version of the one received last week.  But
there's no new principles or anything like that.
JEFF NEUMAN: let me also jump in, Rob (ph), and everyone on this call.  The
mailing list is an open mailing list.  So it should be probably available if
you go through the DNSO (ph) site.
HALL (ph):  Got it.  I didn't understand that.  Thank you.  So I'll pick it
up there?
Can I also ask Marilyn just a quick question, you said this call is being
recorded and transcribed.  Are those available publicly and if...
MARILYN:  Yes.
HALL (ph):  ... and if so, how soon afterwards?
MARILYN:  They're posted and normally, they're available three days...
HALL (ph):  I heard you say they'd be included in your final report.  I
wasn't sure...
MARILYN:  Yes.  No, and there's -- and there's, Rob (ph), there's, I think,
three weeks worth of transcripts up there right now.
HALL (ph):  Great, thank you.
RADER (ph):  Yes, for anybody that wants to paint (ph) by numbers as we --
as we go through these documents, if you go to DNSO.org (ph) and click on
mailing lists, then click on names council  archives, and then click on
names council  transfer, that'll bring you to the Transfer Task Force
mailing lists archive.
So it's a good document. There's four documents that were issued this week.
What we've done that's different from the last one that was more widely
distributed is take the core proposal that we've been batting back and
forth, and really break it into three broad sections.  One is the core
processes that include the drafting principles, the processes (INAUDIBLE).
That haven't really changed.  These (ph) -- but not significantly would be
the best way to characterize that.
Over the last two weeks -- three weeks leading up to this call, there's been
some -- there's been a lot of discussion around the concept of enforcement
arbitration and those sorts of -- those sorts of issues.  So what we've done
there is there's now two proposals on this list. One from the registry
constituency and one from the registrar constituency that were included in
the draft bundle that went out yesterday.  Those still need further work, so
they're not fully -- I would say, they're not maturely at this point for
what's been reviewed.  It looks like we've tried and reconciled the
differences in those documents into one unified document, which would then
get drafted back into the base document.
And the fourth component is the general provision, it's the general
obligation (ph) and provisions which are a run down of the basic conditions
that must be met in order that everything else makes sense.
So today we'll run through the base document.  Excuse me.  This broke into
really four broad areas.  There's the statement of issues, similar issues as
more of a note from the Transcript Team, and then the Task Force, at this
point, which is -- heads up -- what we need to focus on during the next
round of drafting or the next round of teleconferencing.  We have the
principles by which this document has been drafted.  And then we get into
the specific processes -- gaining and losing registrars and that's the --
essentially (ph).

So running through, starting on page four of this document, we get to the
outstanding issues.  Two of the big things that are outstanding right now is
a) the enforcement model (ph), those are addressed through the two drafts
that were -- by registry's and registrar's this week.  The second big issue
which -- what form, or what -- how should -- what should a standard
authorization form look like?  What information should it contain?  What
media format should it be available in?  Are there any other issues around
that that we haven't discovered?  That's certainly up for grabs for
discussion within the task force, and certainly, if anybody has any comments
on that.

Moving on to the principles, the general principles of the document, they
really try and outline not only the basic philosophical points, we've tried
to into account when the -- throughout the evolution of this document,
starting with when -- registrar constituency position paper, and up through
the status of -- as a Task Force drafting document.  But in a lot of cases,
it also -- to what are the principles that registrar's, registry's, or
registrants must -- in order to effectively implement or initiate the
processes that are described in the document.

Now is there any interest -- I know we're dealing with very limited time, is
there interest in going through both the principles and the processes to any
very fine degree?  Or should I open it up to questions?  Or what's the
general feeling as to how we should go through this?  No opinions.
HALL (ph):  Ross, it's Rob (ph), one of my main concerns was the -- how
you've handled the apparent authority questions.  Do you want to detail that
one maybe?  I think a couple of others mentioned it earlier in the call.
RADER (ph):  Apparent authority...
HALL (ph):  Or who can apply for a transfer as opposed to the apparent
authority person?
MARILYN:  Yes, can I, Bob, I think we need to mention the fact that this is
sort of still work in progress within the Task Force.  And different
opinions exist about it because we really didn't talk about it.
RADER (ph):  Yes, I'm just -- let's check and see if the question of
apparent authority is addressed specifically in this document or whether
it's been moved up to the general provision.  So I want to make sure I'm on
the right page first.
I believe that that section covered -- that's been moved up to the general
provision.
RADER (ph):  So to just answer the question broadly -- the drafts, which are
now at varying levels of status within the task force.  And certainly --
picked up before the public portion of the call started was that apparent
authority is really limited to three pretty specific groups.  In the case of
EPP based registry's, the bearer of the authorization information code, or
the auth (ph) code be the person of the apparent authority, as we know
today.
The second two groups really are EPP specific, which would be the
administrative contact or the registrant.  Now in all cases, it's not so
much question who has the apparent authority anymore as we know it under the
current contracts, but certainly a trend towards who is specifically
authorized to request the transcript.  Or not even to request the transfer,
but to approve a transfer on behalf of the registrar.
RICK WESSON: Ross (ph), this is Rick Wesson  (ph), has the Transcript Task
Force taken any steps to enumerate what each contact should be used for, or,
you know drive any direction into that?
RADER (ph):  What we've done actually, Marcus Hayden (ph) and I are working
on a supplement to these documents, which can be seen (ph) on page 15, which
describes the broad set of definitions.  And you'd see that document before.
That was the one that we've -- we started to introduce in the EPP working
group.  Now -- here.  But it essentially describes what the rules are as it
relates to registrants, admission contract (ph), billing contact.  It goes
on to say who the domain name holder is with the ...So in a broad sense, I
would answer that question, yes.
RICK WESSON:  Is that document available anymore?
RADER (ph):  It's actually -- starting on page 15 of the base document.
MARILYN:  And it is very much I think sort of work in progress that we could
use more info on. The other thing we're struggling with is -- and I think
the task force is not -- has made no conclusion on this, if it is not an
EPP -- and it's a question, if it is not an EPP registry, should there be --
guidance?  So you would say, it is only the administrative contact, or the
registrant, or should there be some guidance on -- else might be acceptable
or accepted as demonstrating apparent authority, or do we leave it up to
each registrar to establish their own list of  Apparent authority. And
Christine (ph) is working on a -- she, and Dan, and David (ph), right,
Christine (ph)?
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  Right.
MARILYN:  Could you just describe that drafting project that you're working
on?
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  Well, what we were doing is coming up with a list of names
of delegating the identity of an individual claiming to have apparent
authority.
MARILYN:  I think you need to say a couple of more sentences.  But that was
very high level -- may be mysterious.
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  Do you want me to go through the list as it exists so far?
MARILYN:  Yes, would you?  Just some examples.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Sure.  Notarized statements, drivers license, passed
articles of incorporation in case of a corporate registrant, military ID,
state of government issued ID, birth certificate, electronic signatures --
of design (ph) -- obviously these are all physical forms.  And then an
e-mail address matching that -- losing registrar's who is database with the
electronic form.  That's pretty much where the list stands.
MARILYN:  And go back again the purpose for doing this.  Why...
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  The purpose of doing this is to provide guidelines for
gaining a registrar to validate the identity of an individual claiming to be
the registrant or admin contact.
MARILYN (?):  Comments on that from anyone?  I think it'd be a very useful
document.
JEFF NEUMAN: One of the problems is that registrars never add anything to
draw on for all of this, and they just did whatever they felt was
appropriate.
HALL (ph):  Would it be just -- to the list?
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  No, and that's what I was going to add.  Is this is an
exhausted list and we'd really just be a guideline.
HALL (ph):  Because all the ones you mentioned were -- it's hard to automate
that.  But...
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  These would come into play in a couple of instances.
Let's say that there's no...
HALL (ph):  No e-mail address, or no phone number, or who knows what?
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  Exactly.
HALL (ph):  Those (ph) cases, I'm with you.
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  These would be ultimate forms of means for identifying who
the person is.
MARILYN:  And I'll tell you guys that this sort of started out originally
from a complaint that I got because in one case, a corporation was asked for
a notarized statement because I guess there was an assumption that
corporations have notaries standing around with nothing to do.
The second request was that a corporate -- a -- fax in a drivers license and
a state picture ID -- requested specifically state drivers license.  And the
state drivers licenses uses the social security -- that the U.S. drivers
license uses the social security number.  And the corporate employee was
quite concerned.  There was no ill-intent on the part of the registrar by
any means, but there was, you know, so we felt that -- I agree with Rick
(ph).  There was no guidance, and there was no, you know, idea of when this
kind of thing would be requested, and if there were other alternatives.
So we're working on that and it'll be an appendices.  I think we're thinking
to take more comment on it.  And I think we're going to need a lot more
comment and thought on it.  This does mean that the registrars, of course,
are gathering additional information, which has personally identifiable
information in it.  But you guys have to gather that anyway if you do -- if
you take billing information.  And if you say, who is this?
HALL (ph) (?):  We've -- in certain, primarily -- just FYI, in certain cases
we do accept -- like if you have a phone fax or a copy of your passport, and
then we'll by hand match that up with the who is information, and if it
matches, we'll send the -- to the registrar.  Then the losing registrar will
send out an e-mail -- or attempt to send out an e-mail to the -- the who is
and then not get an answer, and then the whole thing is forgot because they
will match (ph) that request.
RADER (ph):  Yes -- just to close the loop on sort of the bunch (ph) points
around the physical authorization processes, the definition of admin
contact, David's (ph) earlier concerns around who has apparent authority et
cetera.  Certainly the draft recommendations are on the table and I know I'm
stating this as a member of the Drafting Team, not as a member of the task
force.  So those on the task force and in the community are free to disagree
with what we put forward at this point.
But given that the administrative contact or given that it's recommended
that the administrative contact and the registrants (ph) have the authority
to prove or deny a transfer request, given that the administrative contact
is really defined as an individual role or organization authorizing (ph) --
draft (ph) with the registry or registrar on behalf of the name holder, and
given that the -- that the -- register relies on the physical
authorization -- they really assume the burden of proof -- of obtaining and
maintaining reliable evidence of the identity of that administrative contact
or registrant.
What we effectively do is create a nice type (INAUDBLE) that opens up the
process enough to allow the intermediates, for instance, to become the
administrative contact, and actually have some authority and role as it
relates to the domain name. It also allows corporate registrars, companies
like, you know, whether it be Marilyn's Corporate Group or intellectual
property owners and corporate registers like -- to deal with the sort of
high -- low volume, high touch approach of obtaining corporate documents
effecting the transfer, et cetera, What it effectively does on the opposite
side, is pushes out enough of the noise, and air, and -- definition of the
process to minimize or completely diminish gaming (ph) around these --
around these processes.
MARILYN:  Ross (ph), I need to ask a question of David (ph) and maybe
Jennifer (ph).  When you guys think about there are three kinds of contacts
that you might -- that you gather, do you think the registrants that you're
working with consider the administrative contact to be the definitive
contact?
WASCHER (ph) (?):  Are you still there, Jennifer (ph)?
GILLIAM (ph):  I would -- that's just the main information that we, you
know, tell them to make sure that that's the information that, you know,
what they use in the case if there's a discrepancy or something like that.
MARILYN:  OK.  David (ph)?
WASCHER (ph):  I would agree because what I see also is that as an ISP that
is trying to consolidate their resources, they may be moving the domains,
not that the registrant isn't necessarily moving the domain because they
associate it with a Web site.  But the ISP is moving the domain to a
specific registrar for a consolidation and be able to have one place to do
what's necessary.
MARILYN:  Let's talk about that as an example, because I brought that up
before to the task force and it is an example.  I find that Mark McFadden
(ph) who is from the ISP constituency is not with us.But it is an example
that is happening not just in the ISPs but in the corporate world as well.
Is they don't move just a single name.  The move usually a block of names
that they manage.
But I've gotten complaints from the ISP constituency, David (ph), that
the -- they're being asked to -- they never asked their customer who they
were going to register their demand name with in the first place because it
was an outsourcing contract, or, you know, you're providing -- it very much
fits the description of the service that you -- that you described.  Now
they want to change registrars and they're asked to go to the registrant a
petition (ph) for the 50 names they managed for 15 different companies to
move them.
WASCHER (ph):  Correct, that makes it very difficult.
MARILYN:  Can you guys -- I think it's worth our talking a little bit about
this, because I think that's actually a fair -- I think there's probably a
fair number of instances where that's the situation that you're faced with
as registrars, and that users are faced with.
WASCHER (ph):  Well, let's take a quick question, and let me -- let me ask
Jennifer (ph).  Jennifer (ph), when you are in the process of wanting (ph),
what causes you to transfer a domain name to a -- to another registrar's?
GILLIAM (ph):  OK.  Most of the time, we were transferring from another
registrar to our registrar because they're moving their Web page to let us
host it, or they're unhappy with something that went on, you know, with
their current registrar.
WASCHER (ph):  OK.  Do -- are they asking you to move the domain name or are
they specifically coming over and saying, please move our Web site so you
arbitrarily accept the Web site and the domain name as one piece of
information?
GILLIAM (ph):  Sometimes both.  Sometimes they want to go ahead and do --
move both of them together.  Sometimes they just want to move their hosting
and then, you know, we'll just ask them, would you prefer to have your, you
know, domain name through our registrar also.  And most of the time, they'd
rather just do everything at one place.
RADER (ph):  Can I ask you just a mini-follow (ph) up question to that,
would that same registrant have any problem with your organization being the
administrative contact on the domain name?
GILLIAM (ph):  On some people we are the admin contact, on others we are
not.
RADER (ph):  But I mean, it's sort of -- if that were the case where the
admin contact or the registrant could approve the transfer, would it be a
big customer service issue for you to acquire authorization from these
people to become the admin contact to actually manage it effectively on
their behalf?
MARILYN:  Let me -- let me say something about that and then I want to hear
from Jennifer (ph) and David (ph).  Some, companies don't want their info
(ph) even though they do all the work for them, they don't want their
employee listed in the who is as the -- as the contact.  Or, the transfers,
if that is the case, where the company wants it's employee registered and
wouldn't want the third party to be registered.
RADER (ph):  No, I'm not talking about specific individuals, Marilyn.  I'm
more referring to an entity that manages the domain name on behalf of that
registrar.
MARILYN:  Yes, but let me give you an example.  Companies might -- and I'm
making this up for Jennifer (ph) because it's actually a different ISP who
races (ph) with me, the ISP does all of the -- they provide all the services
to their customer base but they do not want their administrative contact
listed as the administrative contact.  They register the name, but they
don't -- the actual registrant is who's listed in the who is database.  That
particular ISP didn't want to be listed.
RADER (ph):  No.  But there's a difference between being the registrar...
... and being the administrative contact.
WASHER (ph):  Ross (ph), this is David (ph).  I understand what you're
saying.  There are cases where an ISP does not want to be listed as the
administrative, that the -- and it's not -- and there's both cases.  Where
the ISP doesn't want to be the administrator but also the registrant wants
to be listed as both, but the ISP is still handling the contact, and the
billing, and that kind of stuff of the domain name.
MARILYN:  So I think we're just saying that it doesn't -- we don't think it
could be just like a slam dunk that you, that, you know, the suggestion
you're making to Jennifer (ph) with (INAUDIBLE).  Guys, we are running over
time.  And I really appreciate everyone's time, but let me take a time
check.  Should we spend 10 more minutes on this.
HALL (ph):  Marilyn, it's Rob Hall (ph), I'd love to speak to this.
MARILYN:  Oh, good.  Yes, Rob (ph).  But let me make sure.  Is...
HALL (ph):  Yes.
MARILYN:  Is everyone OK with our continuing?
JEFF NEUMAN:  Marilyn, this is Jeff (ph).  I have to drop off but you guys
should continue.  I mean, I'll read the transcript so.
MARILYN:  OK.  Thank you, Jeff (ph).
JEFF NEUMAN:  Thanks, bye.
MARILYN:  Yes, Rob (ph)?
HALL (ph):  This is the half time, then this is great.
CHRISTINA (ph):  Half time?  I have another at five -- I have a 4:00, but I
can stick around for another five minutes.
HALL (ph):  Marilyn, it's Rob (ph), I'll try and be brief.  I have a basic
fundamental problem with how this discussion is leading.
HALL (ph):  If the ISP really wants to act like a registrar and perform
registrar services, they ought to go out and become accredited as one and
play by the same rules we all do. Giving a third party this authority over
that domain over the registrant, in my view, is wrong.  And I would hate to
see anything put into place that does that.  I know there are some
registrars that have these huge sub-registrar and I don't want to call them
"resellers" because I don't think they're really a reseller.
In this case, my definition in my mind, a reseller is somebody who sells
someone else's service.  And that's not what's happening.  Their branding it
as their own, and now we're trying to accommodate, you know, this third
party and how they can move huge numbers of domains where the registrant's
finding about it.  And fundamentally, I have a problem with that.
GRANT (ph):  Marilyn, can I speak to that, please?  It's Ross (ph), here.
MARILYN:  Certainly you can, Grant (ph), and then I want to speak to it as
well.  Go ahead.  Grant (ph)?
GRANT (ph):  Oh, I would just say from a users point of view, and I think
Jennifer (ph) has made this point, many times registrants don't go -- don't
understand or want to know about the domain.  What they want is a presence
in the -- and that's typically through some Web presence (ph).  And yet, you
and I know that that requires a domain.  But they're very happy to leave all
that background jittery pockery (ph) to whoever is representing them and
their presence in creating their presence (ph) in the Internet sphere.  And
if that's their ISP, then that's their ISP.  And I think there is value or I
think registrants see value in a party doing it for them.
And so I think ISPs do perform a valuable role, and yes, I do see it as
reselling.  Whether or not it's rebranding or whether it's just entirely
leaving the -- of registration out of the equation, then that's what it is.
MARILYN:  Let me just elaborate on that for just a minute.  Rob (ph), many
of the intermediaries and I should let Jennifer (ph) and David (ph) speak
for themselves, but many of the intermediaries that I -- they, you know,
they offer a range of services, which might be personal private networking,
Web host design and hosting, et cetera, et cetera.  A domain names costs
$8.00, $7.00, $14.00, $35.00, $50.00.  That is not -- their goal is to have
that presence on the Web.  And just as they don't think that it's all about
getting a telephone number, they thought it was about giving a telephone and
the number came with it, and that allowed them to use the infrastructure.
That's how a lot of users look at domain names.
And so, I don't think, you know, I want to be sympathetic to the point that
you're making where you're saying that an ISP is masquerading as the
registrar, I think we're talking about a different player when we talk about
the intermediary that's providing this other very broad range of services.
HALL (ph):  Marilyn, let me -- let me clear up my definition because I think
t here is some confusion about it.
MARILYN:  OK.
HALL (ph):  A reseller that goes out and says, I am reselling Name Scope
Service and the registrar is Name Scope, and I'll hold your hand and do it
all for you, but the contract's with Name Scope.  I don't have as much an
issue with.  A reseller who says, I'll sell the domain names, I take care of
that, and funnel it back to the registrars and in effect, acting exactly as
a registrar and to somehow give that person authority over the domain over
and above what the registrant says is wrong.
MARILYN:  Wait.
RADER (ph):  ... Rob (ph)...
MARILYN:  Wait.
RADER (ph):  ... what the specific definition that I was talking about
earlier was that the administrative contact in this -- in this document
is -- operates on behalf of, not instead of or in supercession (ph) of, but
on behalf of.
MARILYN:  But what I've heard, Ross (ph), is people argue that they won't
make the administrative contact this third party, and they want some
overriding thing for the third party.
RADER (ph):  I would agree with you on that ...

PAUL STAHURA: I would agree with him, too.  I -- but, if the ISP or whoever
is the admin contact and that -- transfer, then we have to -- I would say we
need to transfer it.
HALL (ph):  That's not the point I was trying argue, David (ph).  It's just
giving it to a reseller who's not listed anywhere.  How is the registrar
supposed to know about it?
WASCHER (ph):  That was Paul (ph).
PAUL STAHURA: Yes, that was Paul (ph).
HALL (ph):  Paul (ph), I'm sorry, Paul (ph).
PAUL STAHURA: Yes, it was Paul (ph), and I agree with you.  You can't -- you
can't give the power to transfer to somebody who's not listed in any of the
context.
WASCHER (ph):  Yes, but in -- but in our -- a lot of times in our situation,
when a telco has been transferred over their back end services, and let me
point something out to you, that we provide -- Info Avenue itself provide
back end services.  When somebody has a tech support call, they call the
Info Avenue Tech Support, and it is branded as that telco's name.  Even
though it's us or it's the -- it's the ISP, it is branded.  When they go to
get Web hosting, our Web servers through that telco is branded as that
telco.  So are you telling me then that in the last five years, that is the
wrong business model?
PAUL STAHURA: No, I agree with the business, but the telco would have to get
the authority from the registrant or the admin contact and pass that to you.
PAUL STAHURA:... to the transfer.
MARILYN:  ... hold on just a minute.  This is really important point and
we've talked about it before.  I want to suggest we need to come back to it.
Here's what I think is in play, and David (ph) and Jennifer (ph) need to
help me on this, Mark (ph) and I have had this conversation.  Does the
holder of the relationship with the customer for other purposes, they in
fact be the person who has convinced the customer move from a offline
business to a online business, and they presented the solution from -- to
them and they have an outsourcing contract or some other kind of contract
that governs their relationship with the customer.  Paul (ph), does that
make sense to you and Rob (ph)?

PAUL STAHURA: Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't they just list themselves as one
of the other contacts then like technical contact?  And then we would open
it up to say, you could get the authority from admin, registrant, and
technical?
WASCHER (ph) (?):  No, because from a technical standpoint, Ample Avenue
(ph) would be listed as the technical and it has nothing to do with the
telco.
RADER (ph) (?):  Why doesn't the telco list themselves as one of the
contacts?
MARILYN:  Guys, stop.  Instead of our solving the problem, I think we've
identified the problem.  And what we should do is try to include Christine's
working group a bit more exploration of this issue.
RADER (ph) (?):  It makes sense.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: Sure, just when I was about to hang up.
MARILYN:  And because I -- this is, you know, what we're trying to do is to
simplify to say, so if -- and it may be -- I talked to Mark about this, it
may be that ISPs would have to go out to their customers, change their terms
of service, their service agreement or something of that nature.  But it's
not going to happen over night.
RADER (ph) (?):  Correct.
MARILYN:  But what we're trying to do is just not get transfers held up
because of confusion...
RADER (ph) (?):  Correct.
MARILYN:  ... and not have that happened when they shouldn't.
PAUL STAHURA: Makes sense.
WASCHER (ph):  And I think...
RADER (ph):  ... Jennifer (ph), does that sound right to you?
JENNIFER:  Yes.
MARILYN:  So could we come back to David (ph), and Paul (ph), and Rob (ph),
and Jennifer
WASHER (ph) (?):  Marilyn?
MARILYN:  Yes.
WASHER (ph):  It seems like this is a separate issue from what we were
looking at in our little subgroup.  We were looking about -- at the ways to
verify that authority seeking the transfer is authorized as opposed to
determining who should be authorized to make that.  It seems to me like a
totally different issue.
CHRISTINE RUSSO:  Yes, it's definitely a broadening of the issue.  David's
(ph) right.
MARILYN:  Are you guys under the -- are you guys operating under the
illusion that I'm not going to expand your assignments?
WASCHER (ph):  It's a separate issue and I'm not even sure that's a related
issue.
RADER (ph):  If I can jump in, maybe if it's even much Christine and David
(ph) off the hook, it's exclusively dealt with in the General Provisions
Document.
MARILYN:  And so, maybe what we could do is ask Rob (ph), David (ph), Paul
(ph), and Jennifer (ph) to comment on that?
RADER (ph):  Absolutely -- everybody that's on the call certainly.
PAUL STAHURA:... and Provisions, that one?
RADER (ph):  I'm sorry?
HALL (ph):  Marilyn, could you maybe e-mail that to the people you listed
and show us exactly how we should comment or who we should comment to?
WASHER (ph):  Yes.
HALL (ph):  ... Obligations and Provisions.
RADER (ph):  That's the one, yes.
HALL (ph):  OK.
PAUL STAHURA: and I think that needs much more clarification especially from
our -- from my standpoint, and I'm assuming it would be from the standpoint
of Jennifer (ph) also.
MARILYN:  OK, listen, I have -- I need David (ph), I need for you to send me
your e-mail in MCADE @ATT.COM (ph).  I've got Paul's (ph), I've got Rob's
(ph), I've got Bruce's (ph).  I need Jennifer's (ph), and anyone else who's
on the call now who would want to pay particular attention to this
particular area.  If you send me your e-mails, then I will make sure that we
get -- Ross (ph), can I get you to describe that section and send it back to
them?
RADER (ph):  It's actually -- it's only a two-page document.
MARILYN:  OK.  This has been extremely helpful.  I think this has -- we've
made I think a lot of progress.  We need to wrap up in the next two or three
minutes and figure out what we do next.  But we're probably going to need
more help from you guys.  You've already given us so much of your time.  I
don't know, Rick (ph), if there's any other area, Rick Wesson if 're still
on?  If there's any other area that you, or Denise (ph), or Ken (ph) would
want to comment on?  Because we've focused a lot on the other folks who are
on.
RICK WESSON: that all the comments were very interesting and some of them I
haven't heard before.  I hope that you guys got what you want.  I don't have
anything to add.
MICHEL:  This is Denise (ph), it's been very helpful -- thanks.  And I've
got a lot of reading and research to catch up on this issue.  I look forward
to your output.
MARILYN:  Ken (ph)?  We may have lost him.  He may have had to leave.
We're going to have -- obviously, have to have and want to have another open
call, but we need to do further work, and -- which we are trying to do.  You
guys are going to get a document, that two-page document from Ross (ph).
We're -- when we do the next call, I think it's -- what we may try to do is
actually segment the call into responses on particular sections of the
document.
Is there anyone that you think in particular that you -- because you are
welcome to encourage anyone that you're interacting with to please take a
look at the archives and to, you know, share their thoughts with us.  They
can't post to the archives, but if you would post to me or to any of the
members of the task force, we will post for you.
MICHEL:  And this is Denise (ph), I just wanted to let you know that there's
several members of that large organizing committee that are very interested
in this issue, and would like to participate in the next conference call.
So if you could let me know, I'd be.  So if you could let me know, I'd be
happy to facilitate their involvement.  And if we could have about a week or
so notice, that would be great.
MARILYN:  Next Wednesday, and I'll send that out to everyone.  Next
Wednesday at the same time.
MICHEL:  Great.  I got the notice out to them a little late this time or
some of them would be on the call so.
MARILYN:  OK.
CHRISTINE RUSSO: I have got to jump off.
MARILYN:  Thank you, Christine (ph).
WASCHER:  Marilyn, do you want to give Jennifer (ph) your e-mail address
because the phone seems to be echoing?
MARILYN:  It's MCADE@att.com
MARILYN:  Guys, I know we're kind of wrapping up this and leaping off, but I
think this has been very helpful.  Ross, from your standpoint, because
you're kind of bearing the burden of trying to herd (ph) the cats on those
drafting efforts here, anything in particular from your standpoint?
RADER (ph):  Well, we have the -- you know, we should have a good feel (ph)
forward on the enforcement model, so I think that's relatively clear.  You
know, what I'd like to do now is (INAUDIBLE) task force is get those general
provisions into the base document so that in future review, we've actually
got on piece to work on.  Because through the, as has been made abundantly
clear to me today, that having multiple documents floating around is
probably not all that useful.
MARILYN:  And we are going to need, folks, more outreach.  So let me ask for
those of you who are on this call, who of you who are on this call will be,
besides the task force, will be in the Shanghai (ph).  Rob (ph), will you be
there?
HALL (ph):  Yes.
MARILYN:  David (ph)?
WASHER (ph):  No.
MARILYN:  You know, David (ph), you're going to have to come to one of
these -- one of these meetings.
WASHER (ph):  I normally do but this year has been kind of costly for
everybody.
MARILYN:  Yes.  Paul (ph)?  We may have lost Paul (ph).  Bruce (ph)?
Jennifer (ph)?  We're going to -- we will be coming back to all of you guys.
The next call will be open as well.  It's the same telephone number, so if
you e-mail me, then I'll have e-mails to be able to keep in touch with you
on and keep you abreast of in case we have to do any -- we may end up having
to schedule a separate call or two in order to meet our deadline.  And we'd
like to be sure we keep in touch with you, and that you feel like you're
able to provide input and guidance to us.
WASHER (ph):  Thank you very much for hosting this call, and getting all of
us together, and kind of mediating between all of us as we -- as we voice
our opinion and that kind of stuff.  I appreciate all your help you're
doing.
MARILYN:  Well, we hope we're going to have a consensus policy at the end of
this.
WASHER (ph):  Well, we hope so, too.
MARILYN:  Thank you, everyone.
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.