|
DNSO Names Council transfer TF, 22 October 2002 - captioning |
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Hi. Who just joined?
OPERATOR: Please excuse the interruption. This is the AT&T operator just to inform you that the recorder has now been added to this conference.
MARILYN CADE: Thank you.
OPERATOR: You’re welcome.
CADE: Anyone else join? OK – Justin (ph), (INAUDIBLE), Ross (ph), Dan (ph), Eric (ph) and Marilyn and we’re going to go (INAUDIBLE) and we’re – we expect Grant (ph). We’re going to go ahead and get started. That’s really all of whom I would be expecting.
Today’s call is going to be fun. You have in front of you the general council’s briefing regarding the implementation of policies by registrars and registry operators.
Some time ago, I asked for general council and staff comment on this set of issues following the WLS (ph) project that this task force undertook at the Board request.
CADE: Who just joined us?
GRANT (ph): Good morning, Marilyn – it’s Grant (ph) here.
CADE: Hi, Grant (ph). I’m just saying that – I asked for the general council and staff to provide guidelines or a briefing to the task forces – all four of them – regarding the issues involving policy implementation and accreditation agreements or contracts where implicated.
And I asked for that back at the time of the WLS (ph) work effort on this task force. For a variety of reasons, that has not been forthcoming until now.
Louie (ph) was given other priorities. I did invite him to join the task force today but he was unavailable.
But he has agreed to meet with us in Shanghai. And I am proposing that we try to do that if possible on Sunday even though not all of us will be there so that those folks on the task force who are presenting will have the benefit of having had a conversation with Louis (ph).
I will go back to Glen (ph) and ask her to explore whether it is possible for us to have dial-in for that portion of the preparation the task force will need to do – so stay tuned on that particular point.
I don’t know if anyone has any comments on the general council’s briefing. I can tell you that in the WHOIS task force was– it was received with some concern because of the lateness and the message that it seemed to convey.
GRANT (ph): Marilyn, it’s Grant (ph) here.
CADE: Yes?
GRANT (ph): I thought it was a useful contribution. As you say, timing-wise it would be nice if we would have had this a year ago.
But I don’t think (INAUDIBLE) for me a heck of a lot what I didn’t already try to presume.
CADE: Right. Anyone else?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Well, I guess the real question is – and I’m not sure if it’s time now to address this because I think we need to wait and see what the comments from the constituencies are. But I think at some point we need to address the comments that we received in light of Louie’s (ph) report.
CADE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: But at this point I think we just need to take a wait and see approach.
CADE: Anyone else?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes – I side with Grant’s (ph) analysis at this point. I think certainly it makes it really clear where the bar is. I think if we proceed with that knowledge that we’re well on the track. And I’m not too (INAUDIBLE) concerned about what the implications of the analysis on our …
CADE: OK – I’ll ask you guys to buck up your colleagues who are on the WHOIS (ph) task force with that same more optimistic translation.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Well, I think in the WHOIS (ph) it’s a little different. I think I would tend to agree with Ross (ph) that the transfers – since there seems to be some from a lot of registrars although I could be wrong and registries on the work that we’ve done – I think the WHOIS (ph) is a whole different story as far as what the registries and registrars view that.
GRANT (ph): And, Marilyn, it’s Grant (ph) here again. I – one – I think – and notice that Louie’s (ph) contribution was helpful – I don’t wish to diminish what I think is the problem here (ph).
And I think Louie (ph) has spelled it out very clearly in his – in his paper that (INAUDIBLE) does not have the force of government regulations or government regulators and therefore the only way (INAUDIBLE) is the way that he notes.
And I think that just – underlines there are challenges.
So I don’t wish to diminish the challenge which I think is before us. And it does rest upon – to a large extent – I want to say the goodwill of both parties who in the end need to deliver quality and this is the case with the registrars and registries and how they can be persuaded that their goodwill is needed.
And I think that’s part of what – why – as you know – our constituency is very concerned to insure going to forward that users voice is right up front because in the absence of the users’ participation and scrutiny there’s been no bloody pressure on suppliers to do that which they may not (INAUDIBLE) choose to do.
And that is what is for me is down the line by Louie’s (ph) paper. And I think it’s very timely with regards to ERC (ph) and very timely with regards the concerns that have been expressed particularly by user constituencies as to the structures of the various support groups.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Well, if I can respond to that – I think it takes us a little off the topic of traverse but, Grant (ph), I do think it is important and I do think it is timely. But I think it’s timely for the opposite reason that you’re stating and it’s that this is a (INAUDIBLE) process and we need to bring together all of the – all of the parties to the table.
And we can’t just ignore – and we need to seriously consider the pain of those that have implemented the policy as well as the users’ opinions and it will come to some sort of common consensus decision.
Now, again, I think the transfers that we’ve done a pretty decent job with the entire report. The WHOIS (ph) is something completely different. But I think with transfers I think we’re on the right scale and we need to start thinking in terms of – instead of voting we need to start thinking in terms of actually coming to consensus and hearing each party out and actually paying (INAUDIBLE) when if a registry or registrar says, “Look, it’s not feasible. We can’t do it.”
And I think – I really think it’s good for that point as well.
CADE: Let me just – let me comment on one thing. I would agree with everything you guys say. I’ll make one comment about the WHOIS (ph) process. The content of the (INAUDIBLE) has been available now for several weeks from the working groups and was posted to the WHOIS (ph) task force and made available to be shared backward into the constituencies.
And there was a perspective on the part of the task force members that that was going on.
The (INAUDIBLE) task force is in a different situation and the challenge they face right now is to – although they – we invited registrars to come and speak to us, we hosted open calls, we actually had them on the call – it’s clear that the – much more dialog is needed and that probably because transfers is a (INAUDIBLE) priority to the registrars. And WHOIS (ph), until very recently, was not a burning issue to them – that they were perhaps not as attuned to that work effort.
So that’s a – even though the information was being perked up there wasn’t the depth of interest and prioritization of interest that has recently emerged.
So heading to that ...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Specifically there, Marilyn – if I – if I may be so bold as to interrupt – there’s something that we, the transfers task force, can learn from that particular experience in that it’s really our responsibility as a task force – not as representatives of constituencies but as a team to insure that we meet the bar that I can set for us in that consensus policy process.
And that means constructive outreach and dialog and consultation and all of those things that Grant (ph) and (INAUDIBLE) alluded to. We can make sure that we dot those Is and cross those Ts because it’s certainly the case that I don’t want to be in a position, say, in six months where someone claiming that we haven’t done that – conducted that dialog and (INAUDIBLE) that consensus actually prevails through something that’s completely …
CADE: Right. I think that’s a good point. Let me move us to the purpose of today’s call, which is to try to finalize what we expect to present, how we expect to present it realizing that I’ll walk you through what I know about the I Can (ph) format.
Denise Michelle (ph) has posted – and I’m forwarding it to all of you who haven’t seen it. Sorry, guys – I’m looking through my vast amounts of paper here.
Denise (ph) has – let me – let me back up. On Sunday I would like to convene whoever is there for this dialog with Louie (ph) about the general council’s briefing document.
If we can have dial-in on Sunday we will do that but I don’t know how feasible that is.
The opportunity that the transfers task force has to present is at 10:30 Tuesday morning – and I’m going to come back to Monday in just a minute – 10:30 Tuesday morning for approximately a two hour session. It will be chaired by Denise Michelle (ph) and has as panelists Chuck Goane (ph) from bearers and registry with an overview of a process that has previously been posted to this group.
Let me start out a little differently – Mike Palage (ph) will be making a short presentation about the date of transfers as he views the processes today. Dan Halloran (ph) will give an overview of the contractual obligations of the registrars explaining the present legal requirements under the contract. Chuck (ph) will then have a short presentation.
And we will then move to the presentation from the (INAUDIBLE) task force. And I’m going to do a very short introduction of about three minutes. And then Ross (ph) will do an overview drawn – top line overview – drawn from the document we’ve all been working on.
And I am hopeful at that point that we will then begin to engage in a Q&A and a dialog with the community regarding the recommendation.
As far as I know right now it is Jeff (ph), Ross (ph) and me who will be there, right?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I will be there – yes.
CADE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Were you looking for others to say no or yes?
CADE: Whatever.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK – I’ll say whatever.
CADE: OK. Then I would think that, Jeff (ph), in particular we would want to include you in the – and being able to address the Q&A and respond to the questions that the task force gets?
JEFF (ph): Sure.
CADE: I’m hoping and expecting to have dial-in by conference call. We need to expect that. And I’m hoping that others might be able to be on the call as well.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: How many – how many hours ahead are they?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: It will be 13 ...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... with the time change here.
CADE: So it’s going to be ...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: 11:30?
CADE: ... it’s going to be the usual kind of thing we do to Grant (ph).
GRANT (ph): Yes.
CADE: Grant (ph), I don’t – it won’t be – it will be a different time zone.
GRANT (ph): It’s not too bad for me actually but you’re now talking Tuesday a.m., aren’t you?
CADE: Yes.
GRANT (ph): Now I don’t as yet have dial-in.
CADE: I know. You will. I’ve talked to – I’ve talked to Glenn (ph) about that – you will have.
GRANT (ph): OK.
CADE: Let me go to trying to understand from all of you – where do you see the areas of concern about our recommendations that we may need to – before I do that – so we have the two hour session followed immediately by the names council after a lunch break. And the names council will discuss the recommendations for about (INAUDIBLE).
Not repeating the presentation, Bruce (ph) is instructing the names council members that their opportunity to hear about the recommendations in the open session. So we will not be repeating the presentation during the names council but going immediately to discussion.
But he only has about 30 minutes allocated for the discussion.
Where do people foresee areas that we need to maybe do some additional preparation or consider further dialog on in relation to our recommendation – recommendations – sorry.
Louie (ph) has summarized in his document appendix one a summary of what he thinks our recommendations are and I do think we need to look very carefully at those and see if we agree that – if we agree that there’s a good understanding that we recommend.
In a couple of places I think that it’s fair to say that we probably either need to be able to clarify something or to say that area is still a work in progress. And, in fact, in our report we recommended that that still needed to be developed.
And that I think falls – that comes to play in a couple of places where, for instance, we recommend a (INAUDIBLE) panel but we didn’t go into detail on how that would be established.
And there’s a couple of other places including – and, Jeff (ph), this might relate to an area that you might be particularly helpful on where you recommend registry operators would be responsible possibly for a fee for completing reviews of individual transfer requests within 14 days at any request of a registrar.
JEFF (ph): Right.
CADE: I think it would be very good if we could flag those areas so that people don’t misunderstand in the presentation where this is a recommendation. We very much want – or this is an interim or preliminary recommendation – we very much want and seek comment on these areas – feasibility, cost, practicality, whether it can be implemented, if there are better alternatives.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Did you – I got distracted perhaps a second, Marilyn. The last thing I actually fully heard was that you were looking for areas of concern from a constituency level?
CADE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE)
CADE: Yes. And if we could so that we can, as a task force representative, about what else we need to do.
ROSS (ph): Maybe I’ll kick things off and facilitate or (INAUDIBLE) the discussion. There’s really three things that I suppose from a registrar constituency perspective that the task force – the task force should be aware of.
First and foremost there are – there are – is a very dented but small core of opposition to the principles that we are proceeding on – the first being that when a gaining registrar asks for a transfer the losing registrar really doesn’t have a lot of say in the matter with the exception of the (INAUDIBLE). So it’s really back to the act versus knack (ph) debate.
I’m not sure that that disagreement of principles at this point is warranted, healthy or even appropriate but that’s something that the names council will have to determine.
CADE: But, Ross (ph), can I just make a comment as we go through these three? You guys may have noticed that in the interim report in about two places I made it very clear that opposition must be documented in order for the task force to respond to it and that it should not – if it were not documented or raised that the task force would document that no opposition had been raised.
ROSS (ph): That’s true.
CADE: And I did that.
ROSS (ph): Regardless of a negative option I think ...
CADE: All right.
ROSS (ph): ... that doesn’t say – that doesn’t stop the lobby issue. So I would agree and I’m just flagging it as a ...
CADE: No – that’s very important because I did that. I just wanted the task force to understand why I did that because I’m concerned that that core of opposition is out there but if it’s not spoken the task force may be put in a position of almost making misleading or misled set of recommendations.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Here’s where we get to. This is where that core will find some support – the core of opposition. There’s a number of registrars that have constructively disagreed with details of implementation I guess would be the best way to describe it.
I wouldn’t call it – it certainly isn’t part of that first count and these are the people that are actually working within the constituency to make it all the better. They’re engaging in discussions ...
CADE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... et cetera.
CADE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I’m not if we’re ever going to, as a task force or a names council or what I count as a whole, get to the point where we have 100 percent agreement on 100 percent of the details.
All we can do is make sure that we engage in enough dialog to uncover as many of those possible things as we can and then talk about them as a task and see if we can’t come to some sort of compromise.
CADE: Right. And then – and then document those other views out there ...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.
CADE: ... to write their position out and document it as they – as a report.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Or, failing that, that we try to address them in our report.
CADE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: It would actually be one of my responsibilities as a – as a registrar constituency task force rep to go back over the last year’s worth of (INAUDIBLE) and pull out the various points of contention – I guess you could call it – and make sure that those (INAUDIBLE) in some way, shape or form.
And I guess the third are the people that just haven’t read the report yet that aren’t aware of the implications of the board, that don’t understand that this is a big change in the way that they will be requested to do business or required to do business. And I’m not sure what we expect out of those.
That’s really what we, as a group, can expect (INAUDIBLE) registrar constituency.
CADE: Will the PowerPoint summary that you’re doing then reach those? Will that briefing reach the people or most of them or do we still need to ...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Well, it’s – we’re going to respond, though, Marilyn, because the- as I point out on the GA this morning, the consensus needs to be published across all impact to stakeholders. It’s not just limited to people that have membership status.
CADE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: At the end of the day the registrar constituency is really only 50 registrars – not under 40. So I don’t know to what degree we can push that ball forward – force other 100 registrars.
CADE: Wow! Ninety of them are not members of the constituency.
I guess reading Mike’s (ph) – Palage’s (ph) postings about representation – representative-ness of the constituency – I wasn’t aware that it was roughly I guess a third of the accredited registrars will have to be – beyond that there will have to be another means of reaching those guys.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Mike’s (ph) tried a number of events to get I Can (ph) to require the registrars to (INAUDIBLE) the constituency. But Louie (ph) issued an opinion saying it’s not required for anyone to participate. So ...
CADE: Right. So there will have to be – I just want to make note that there’s got to be – here’s what I take from that – that the distribution of the report to the constituency, then the GA and even posting it for public comment is probably not adequate.
We probably need to find a way to see if there’s a – some mechanism to alert the other 90 registrars.
JEFF (ph): Yes – we do. But the other thing we need to think about, though, is even though there’s 90 out there that – 99.99 percent of the registrations that are from the (INAUDIBLE) or show that are names of the constituency.
CADE: Jeff (ph) – do you know what? But let me just ask a question. I need for I Can (ph) to give that to us I think so that we can document that. I’m not questioning your account here but I just think for the task force the idea that we do need to be able to convey in our report that we tried to reach out to the other 90 but, in fact, 90 some percent of the registrations are managed by those who are active in the constituency.
JEFF (ph): Well, I think more importantly we get into a debate about representative nature of any constituency or the volume of registrations. I don’t think those are measures that we need to be concerned with, rather, that it’s my strong belief that the registrar constituency does have a broad enough base to be reasonably representative of most registrars.
So we’re going to – we’re not going to see any surprises from the 90 that we wouldn’t have seen from the 40 I guess would be the best way to try and characterize what I was trying to get at earlier.
It’s definitely a concern but I’m not expecting a huge – what’s the word – (INAUDIBLE) because we’ve disenfranchised that group or anything like that …
CADE: Let me – let me move us to – let’s just go through – can we – can we go back, Ross (ph), to – you said there were things we need to be aware of?
ROSS (ph): Yes.
CADE: Can you go to the editors?
ROSS (ph): We did. There’s just three types. There’s the – there’s the group that will hold their breath until they turn blue and keel over. They just don’t like the proposal that – how the game registration would be responsible for acquiring the authorization.
That’s a well-documented position. It’s not rational at this point.
The second would be those that have sometimes very strong – sometimes very mild disagreement with specific portions of the document.
And the third would be those that we haven’t heard from yet and we don’t know what they’re going to say if anything.
CADE: But we do know because the – I’m told by the constats (ph) that they have been hearing from some of the registrars. And Louie’s (ph) statement – some of the – some of the registrars and registry operators have expressed alarm concerning the effect these proposed requirements would have on the operation.
Can you – can you and Jeff (ph) just speculate on whether you think that’s largely about the WHOIS (ph) or also about the transfers recommendation?
ROSS (ph): My guess is that it has to do with the – with the – I’m sorry – the WHOIS (ph) – that with transfers I think the only comments you’re going to get from the registries are really questions that things seem vague, clarifications where it seems like we’re not recognizing differences between registries – for example, some that are (INAUDIBLE) and some that are not. We need to add some language.
CADE: OK.
ROSS (ph): I’m just looking through a couple of things that I know we talked about. And then you’ll see some questions about the dispute resolution process but most of it is not rejections of the things that are there for – that they thing are bad things – they are just questions to clarify or – basically questions to clarify.
CADE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So you – so largely would it be safe to characterize that the registries are part of the second (INAUDIBLE). You either don’t agree or don’t understand but you don’t disagree on principle?
CADE: Yes – and are also willing to work towards getting a solution …
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE)
CADE: Good. Any comments from the rest of the task force members on – from Dan (ph) or Eric (ph) or Grant (ph) on – if they have this on their constituencies or the GA?
GRANT (ph): It’s Grant (ph) here. No – I don’t think there are any burning concerns about the aspects of what’s being proposed in the report.
CADE: Yes – Eric (ph)?
ERIC (ph): … I don’t understand why it’s impossible to change aspects of the (INAUDIBLE) process. In the past we can change it (INAUDIBLE) report is necessarily or the thinking that it’s necessary to change the concept of that aspect. The concept change is not a problem. It’s not a legal problem.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I’m sorry – a change of contract is not a legal – I’m trying to ...
CADE: I think actually – I think what Eric (ph) is saying – Eric (ph), let me try to ...
The contract that registrars have with I Can (ph) is a five year contract.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.
CADE: And the criteria that was established to force changes in the contract that were not voluntarily agreed to. So to have a threshold demonstrating consensus, et cetera broadly.
So the challenge we have is to insure, given the diversity of (INAUDIBLE) business plans of different registrars who hold the contract – and I’m not – I’m going to single you out for a minute, Ross (ph) – requires this process.
And if that process is fulfilled then I believe it is possible to make changes in the contract but if it’s not fulfilled that criteria was established as a protection to people who are running businesses so that they wouldn’t be burdened with no input or that their business model, which have involve investment capital and other business investments wouldn’t be undermined.
But I think if we have consensus from the majority of the affected people – players – including the registrars that it is – that’s the point it is impossible to change. But that consensus has to be demonstrated.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: If I could add to that, Marilyn – I think at this point my personal worry around this – what keeps me up at night – is not so much with the specific agreement of all registrars but really having that endorsement from the – from the registry constituency.
At the end of the day whether the registrars like it or not, the registries have much better contracts than we do. They’re barred for adopting these types of policies just on (INAUDIBLE). And, as a result, having (INAUDIBLE) the task force is trying to achieve. So ...
CADE: I want to be sure that, Eric (ph), that I was responsive to your question about interpreting it?
ERIC (ph): Yes. I’d like to explain better my idea. If I Can (ph) changes the contract it’s possible – it’s not – how do I say – I need (INAUDIBLE) on your (INAUDIBLE).
OK – I’ll try to explain. Now the people have some contracts. But this contract (INAUDIBLE) changes if we change the (INAUDIBLE) of the transfers. Or I know the qualities.
It’s not necessary to review that (INAUDIBLE). It’s necessary to (INAUDIBLE) the contract. And this is possible because actually the contracts have these special article that abolishes changes this automatic (INAUDIBLE) of the contract.
So that’s an explanation of my idea.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Let me think – let me see if ...
CADE: Yes – please.
ERIC (ph): OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So what you’re saying – it’s possible to change a contract if the policy changes. That is because ...
ERIC (ph): Each contract has a special (INAUDIBLE) article that is – not necessarily restricts the change of that (INAUDIBLE). It only changes the special effects.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: That’s true but at least with registries and I’m not familiar with registrars – but with registries ...
ERIC (ph): OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ... there is – certain protections are built in and that a policy may only have an effect on a contract if that policy is considered a consensus.
And it’s only considered a consensus policy if it’s documented – it documents – I’m sorry?
ERIC (ph): I’m with you. But (INAUDIBLE) necessary to (INAUDIBLE) to change – to help the procedures change the contract and continue the process.
CADE: I think – I think we’re – I think we’re fine. I think that we are in agreement here that the point is – can we document – we follow that necessary process? And that’s where our challenge just comes in.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: It’s a challenge from the perspective of the approach we use, Marilyn. I think that’s just a challenge in the (INAUDIBLE) work that it represents.
CADE: Yes. I think that’s right.
Dan (ph), did you want to add anything? If not, I’m going to move on.
DAN (ph): Hello?
CADE: Did you want to add anything?
DAN (ph): I’m sorry – I was having trouble with my phone there. No – I don’t have anything to add right now.
CADE: OK. Let me move to – I have a question for you guys. I had asked – and, Grant (ph), I need for you to comment on this. I had asked Grant (ph) to develop a strong recommendation that we could also point to. But since we are in the process of taking comments we had put that on hold.
Right now what we have is the interim report as posted. We have – we’re working on this PowerPoint presentation, which will be relatively dense – lots of words. Do we – will we be putting forward at times the ...
GRANT (ph): Marilyn, it’s Grant (ph) here. I’m having difficulty hearing you. Someone’s typing without mute.
CADE: That’s our transcription person who’s the transcription.
GRANT (ph): No wonder they type so well.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Sorry – for everybody’s information that was me with a very loud keyboard. I will mute myself.
CADE: I apologize to our transcriptionist. I’m sorry – go ahead.
GRANT (ph): No – I’ll let you carry on.
CADE: So my question is – do we think it’s useful to have Grant (ph) draft a resolution out there at Time (ph)?
JEFF (ph): This is Jeff (ph). Comments are due until the 8th, right?
CADE: That’s right.
JEFF (ph): I think we hold off on the resolution until after we have a final report and we’re actually ready to present it. I’m not sure why – I’m not sure recommendations won’t change so I’m not sure what our resolution will do now.
CADE: Anyone else?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I think we should look at both this and the documents. All of the documents (INAUDIBLE) produces are simply items on the task force, Marilyn.
Other than Grant’s (ph) assignment right now I’m not aware of any other assignments, which means we’ve got a lot of people on this call that don’t actually have something to do.
CADE: I’m going to make assignments. That’s my next item. Actually you have a big assignment.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes – but it’s just a PowerPoint …
CADE: I am going to make an assignment.
GRANT (ph): Can I respond to your question, Marilyn?
CADE: Please.
GRANT (ph): I think it would be useful to have the draft resolution out there mainly because when I came to draft it, it was different to previous draft resolutions of being associated with – in other task forces.
In other words, the substance of the task force recommendations is the report. And so the draft resolution, as I apparently managed to managed to craft it does not contain – with some minor exceptions – does not contain the substance of our recommendations to the board.
And I think it’s – I would – I think we should find it useful to have that out there. And, hence, if we’ve got it wrong or if we’ve got stuff in the draft resolution which needs to be (INAUDIBLE) it would be useful for it to have that comment.
And I’m thinking about the discussion we’ve had earlier on the task force here as to how specific we wish to be with regards to implementation.
And I know Jeff (ph) and I had an exchange of views on that and I have to say, particularly having seen Louie’s (ph) note, that I would now side with Jeff’s (ph) view that we should be as specific as I thought and we’re seeking to reflect in the resolution.
So it’s nice that he found that exchange a useful one and I think we can do these things in parallel.
The other thing which the resolution does – it does that gobbledy goop crap at the beginning which says, “Based on this directive – that terms of reference and all of the rest of it, here it is.”
And so it does provide a bit of background documentation. And, again, if we’ve got that wrong or if we hadn’t got all of the important bits in there then we’re bound to be told and preferably told now rather than later.
CADE: Yes. I think I would – I would tend to agree with that mostly because I’m feeling overwhelmed with the amount of work that we may otherwise end up having to do at the far end.
And let me back up and see if – so we have Ross (ph) and Grant (ph) saying that’s it’s probably going to be (INAUDIBLE) to do that because it will help us. Then we will get comment on that as well.
Obviously we’ll have to change it base on – adapt as appropriate to further comments.
Anyone else – Dan (ph) or Eric (ph) or Christine (ph)?
DAN (ph): Dan (ph) has no comments.
CHRISTINE (ph): I would agree with Jeff’s (ph) comments.
CADE: And ...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Can you guys help me understand the disagreement a little bit?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I think that it’s not that we shouldn’t be working it. I don’t think we should release anything because I think it will detract away from the report itself.
We really want to get comments on the report.
What the resolution says – it may say nothing. It may just say, “Here’s the background. I can do what you need to do with this.”
But I think we really need to focus everyone’s attention on the report (INAUDIBLE) I mean outside the task force. Inside the task force if we want we can.
Plus, it depends on the comments we get back – the whole resolution could change.
So it’s not that we have a strong position one way or the other it’s just I have a feeling it might have made the track.
CADE: Let me – let me come back to this point and move us on with some other assignments.
For some reason I Can (ph) does not have the notice about the fact that the comment site is open. And I’m still getting inquiries from people asking me how to find the comment site.
It’s on the DSNO site. I’m hoping that I Can (ph) will get a link to it today or tomorrow. And I’m not sure – I had – I had thought that Glynn (ph) had put that in modem but I think people may be just a bit overwhelmed in getting ready to go to Shanghai.
Most people I think who are going to comment on the transfers document are acceptable through the constituencies and the GA – but – except for this group that we just talked about.
But it still needs to – in order to get user input it needs to be made public to the – to the I Can (ph) site.
I need to make sure that people take an assignment, monitor the site and to understand what (INAUDIBLE) have been posted up through Friday.
So, given that – and I’m going to ask if I can – Christine (ph), for you and Dan (ph) and Grant (ph) – if you could – to pay particular attention to that. Maybe check it once a day. And let me just make sure I know.
Eric (ph), are you expecting to be in Shanghai?
ERIC (ph): No. I don’t …
CADE: OK. Well, then can I ask you guys who aren’t going to be there to pay particular attention to the postings just up through Friday because I don’t – I think it’s fair to say that once Saturday, Sunday and the I Can (ph) meeting is over that then we’re not able to necessarily …
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: What …
CADE: We’re not able to be current with postings after that but we do need to try to be – have a sense of what’s been posted up until then. Even if nothing is being posted we need to know that.
CHRISTINE (ph): Sure.
CADE: Then after – well, actually I’m going to ask you guys if you could and maybe Christine and I could ask you to spearhead this – making sure that there’s a – some kind of a summary that notes the comments that have been received.
(INAUDIBLE) link to the comments, we need to have a summary which says, “Five hundred and thirty-three comments were received on the public comment site,” or, “Thirty-three received and they generally fall into the following categories.”
If you could work with Dan (ph) and Eric (ph) and – who am I – and David Saccharin (ph) on that ...
CHRISTINE (ph): Sure.
CADE: ... that would then put us in a position to – and maybe even ask you guys to take responsibility for when we get together as a task force after the comments (INAUDIBLE) whether or not we think we’ve gotten sufficient comments – that we have the necessary threshold test.
If we haven’t gotten comments we have to make an assessment of whether we think that because there hasn’t been enough outreach.
We should also be getting constituents’ input. We need to get constituency statements.
So each of you has to think about how you’re going to get a constituency statement even if your constituency says, “We have decided to post comments individually to the public comment site.” We have to have some kind of a statement from the constituency.
And I think, Dan (ph), were you proposing that the GA should be encouraged to post individually?
DAN (ph): I didn’t say that but it sounds like a very good idea because I would be very old before I could get a consensus out of the GA.
CADE: So however you plan to pursue it, can each of you please advise so that your elected representative on the names council knows whatever process you’re going to follow in your constituency?
Some will want to have a – I suspect the ITC generally has a consensus statement but I don’t know that that will be what each (INAUDIBLE) necessarily want to do.
It’s very possible, Ross (ph), that you might decide that the registrar constituency – you guys would want to pursue it.
But I think we just need to have a sense of what we’re going to get.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Well, I can tell you (INAUDIBLE) specifically what you’re going to see from the registrars if anybody’s interested.
CADE: We are interested.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: You’re going to receive a mixed bag. Constituencies (INAUDIBLE) to hammer out a position on (INAUDIBLE) topic, draft up the document that explains that position and then seek signatures for that document. So it would be that the constituency position is only represented of two members’ interests.
I think the trend is for sufficient discussion for our work. You’ll see a multitude of signatures on there.
The last votes on this particular document – I think something like 30 supporters or something in that neighborhood. You will see, however, those that are not signators (ph) for the constituency position actually is file their own submissions.
CADE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I would expect to see likely a minimum guarantee two, likely three, at most unrealistically five of those.
CADE: Do any other constituencies represented here that they might have a minority report? I use the term (INAUDIBLE). OK?
JEFF (ph): Yes. I think we should just say “report” – not really minority.
CADE: Well, no – in this case we wouldn’t say “report,” Jeff (ph) because – maybe I should say multiple reports from their constituencies.
JEFF (ph): Yes. What I think – what you’ll see against the registry constituency – you’re going to see a bunch of questions I’m sure. But that’s not meant – the final statement of the constituency – I think some of those questions need to be answered before they have their final ...
CADE: OK.
JEFF (ph): ... opinion. But, that being said, I could start these questions to the task force within the next couple of days so we can answer them and address them.
CADE: As much as possible – for any of you who think your constituents have questions – if you can share them with the task force before we go to Shanghai we can try to figure out where we have answers, where we don’t, where the people (INAUDIBLE) to questions have to say, “We beseech your question. That is not something we have been able to address.” That is on our work list,” as opposed to, “Yes, in fact, we did, as a task force, think about that. Here’s the answer.”
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Plus, I would like to see some of the people (INAUDIBLE) report and some of their rationale because it’s possible we can address this or change our reports to reflect some of their sentiments.
CADE: Of course.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So I wouldn’t – that’s why I don’t like using the term “minority report” for something completely final.
CADE: Yes – you – I think you’re right in the – again, I agree with you. I think where I was going was is in the final report do we think that some – there – it sounds to me like it still may be likely that there may be multiple inputs from at least the registrar constituency.
But I just wondered if it would be multiple inputs from other constituencies that we could presently identify.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: It’s theoretically possible we might have a minority (INAUDIBLE) registry constituency with respect to certain items.
CADE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: But I’m pretty sure there will be just one statement from the constituency in support. But ...
CADE: I’m going to ...
ERIC (ph): … I need to – I need to leave from the conference.
CADE: OK.
ERIC (ph): OK – see you.
CADE: OK, Eric (ph).
ERIC (ph): See you.
CADE: Bye, bye.
ERIC (ph): Bye, bye.
CADE: Can I just ask a favor of all of you? And it’s not really a favor but I’m just going to at this point – I’m going to ask Bruce (ph) to insure that if we have dial-in available during the names council that any members of the task force who are not names council members be invited to dial in for that portion of the call because I think it would be important for the task force to hear the names council discussion.
GRANT (ph): Marilyn, I’m sorry – I can’t hear you for the keyboard again.
CADE: Sorry – I just said that I’m going to see if Bruce (ph) – if we can agree that if there’s dial-in for the names council meeting – that any members of the task force who aren’t physically present there be allowed to also dial in to hear the discussion at the names council.
Jeff (ph) and Ross (ph) will be there physically and you would – we would expect you to be on the phone – names council member. But I think it’s particularly important that each of us – as much as possible make sure that the elected reps are attending the discussion that’s going to take place from 10:30 to 12:30.
So I’m just – I’m going to keep making a point of that. And Bruce (ph) is going to send an e-mail to the names council re-enforcing that the assumption is they’ve been briefed by their representatives and that they are going to attend that session, which hopefully will help to insure the current awareness.
Let me go to a question that I have that’s on – the (INAUDIBLE) was suggesting that those of us who are going to participate in the panel on Tuesday try to (INAUDIBLE) for a (INAUDIBLE) discussion on Monday. She doesn’t get in until late Sunday night – 9:00.
I will ask her to post that but I think we all have constituency meetings on Monday.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes.
CADE: What’s the feasibility for – Jeff (ph), for you and Ross (ph) to – and we’ll go back to Chuck (ph), Christine (ph). But I think Chuck’s (ph) would probably be pretty similar to yours, Jeff (ph).
JEFF (ph): For the constituencies – yes. There’s a couple of other things going on. There’s an IBM presentation on Monday and I can’t remember what else is on the schedule. But ...
CADE: So we need to work around those other ...
JEFF (ph): Yes. I might also have some other commitments as well.
CADE: OK. Ross (ph), do you have a constituency meeting all day?
ROSS (ph): Yes.
CADE: So if we could – let me ask Denise (ph) to e-mail to all of you guys and we could try to work out – I think we need just a few minutes.
We also need to know from Chuck (ph), who has left us up in the air about where his presentation – his proposal stood.
Does anyone have any feedback on that?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I’ve heard nothing about it – gees – in about three weeks I guess (INAUDIBLE).
CADE: OK. Let me ask Denise (ph) also on the list that she sends out – the invitations she send out – to ask Chuck (ph) to bring us up to date on where he stands on pursuing the proposal he’s putting forward or intending to put forward so we have a sense of what’s going to be discussed because we need to know what the focus is going to be during that – during the session and whether this is – how this is going to be presented – how his recommendation – proposal – is going to be presented.
If I can get my PowerPoint – which is going to be very minimalistic – done with DSL tomorrow morning and send it out to folks, what your sense, Ross (ph) on when – you’re just going to base yours on the 7th but then the recommendation?
ROSS (ph): Completely. There’s – it’s based on the last – on the final version, which should be for public comment. So it’s certainly now new editorial.
I’ll be going through that over the next 24 hours – that’s the only point – to try to make it as concise and understandable as possible.
I’ll also ask this of the other members that are on the call – if you do get a chance to look at it and there’s obviously wording or things aren’t clear or I haven’t (INAUDIBLE) of the report into the PowerPoint in what – I guess you could call it in an appropriate manner – quote – unquote – just – it should be (INAUDIBLE) because I want to make sure that it’s ...
It shouldn’t be a contentious thing because we’ve all agreed (INAUDIBLE).
CADE: What’s your timing?
ROSS (ph): Over the next 24 hours.
CADE: OK. I want to come back to – actually I am going to ask you, Grant (ph), to go ahead and do the draft resolution. And let’s send it around and take a look at it.
We can have one more cut as part of it – as whether the whole thing goes forward or part of it goes forward. But I would like to have it drafted and be able to look at it and look up the piece parts and see what part of the required documentation that it provides so we don’t have to do additional work on the documentation nor ask someone else to do (INAUDIBLE).
GRANT (ph): Yes – I’m not quite following you, Marilyn. In other words, I have draft the resolution and we discussed it and (INAUDIBLE) that discussion. There is one change. So if you want me just to. . .
CADE: Right.
GRANT (ph): I’ll put that change in and then just put it back to the task force?
CADE: Yes.
GRANT (ph): OK.
CADE: Then we can look at it. And based on the things – the – think of this as you have to fill in the blanks, dot the Is, cross the Ts in order to meet certain criteria.
So look at what Grant (ph) has done and think about where a question is necessary that we have to fulfill. There’s a huge amount of work still to do in the documentation regardless of what the recommendation is, the final report is still going to be a significant work to complete the documentation that’s required.
Anything else that we need to do today?
I would like to give you guys a very short – if you’re interested – a very short (INAUDIBLE) about my two weeks at the wonderful intergovernmental treaty organization called the ITU and it’s (INAUDIBLE) in the internet and the (INAUDIBLE) resolutions that were passed that are specifically related to functions that are presently under the purview of I Can (ph), if any of you are interested?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Sure.
CADE: I think most everybody knows that the ITU is a treaty organization – about 193. It also has what are called recommendations. The recommendations are supposed to be non-binding but, in fact, most developing countries and least developed countries look to the recommendations and often quantify those in national law.
The ITU has a significant budget deficit of about 220 million Swiss Francs.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: What that in real money, Marilyn?
CADE: We’re talking real money. The interest on the part of the least developed countries and the developing countries is a search for information and awareness and education about what things involving the internet mean or what the impact will be on them.
The three resolutions – there was one on security of – I’m sorry – information and communications (INAUDIBLE) security, which has significant implications for the internet.
It changed significantly during the treaty conference and is now really an awareness and outreach resolution.
The second is a resolution on member states – member states involvement in multi-lingual names. And I’m happy to send that to all of you because I think it would be helpful since you’re interested in IBN (ph) to see how the role of the ITU is portrayed.
The third is called Resolution 102 – is a – which was a resolution first in Minneapolis in 1998 that has undergone rather significant change and does call for a full – at least an awareness and policy discussion related to domain names and IP addressing.
Domain names and IP addressing today are, of course, managed by the private sector.
The – there’s also a – so there’s support of Resolution 102 for continued participation in various intergovernmental entities on the part of the ITU on those new issues.
But it was not possible to be clear in the discussion on what those intergovernmental entities are intended to be because of a split between various countries on whether I Can (ph) should be mentioned or shouldn’t be mentioned.
The – there’s been a couple of news articles that portray a very strong interest on the part of the ITU and becoming much more involved in the (INAUDIBLE).
And when you read Res 102, which I’ll send to you, you’ll see that there’s really a call for the ITU to be on the internet in general and IPI pressing a domain name in particular in terms of education awareness, policy discussion – those kinds of things.
The – there’s probably some fusion on the part of member states that the country representatives who come to the ITU are often not the same country representatives who come to the YAK (ph).
And in some cases there’s overlap and duplication and very strong indication. I would note that in New Zealand that’s the case – very – ongoing communication between the various players. Other countries tend to (INAUDIBLE) on that.
So sometimes the YAK (ph) representative might have a particular view or position about something that I Can (ph) is doing while an attendee at ITU might not actually be up to date yet on what another agency is doing or a position that they’re taking.
So that was pointed out as something that needed to be improved.
And all in all I would say it was quite an experience for me as the private sector to sit in a treaty conference for two weeks where 190 countries were discussing the internet and – both directly and indirectly and – gosh – not be able to go to the microphone.
There are people who – or at least I made it through the two weeks.
I’ll send Res 102 and also the multi-lingual res around to you guys if you are interested.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: That would be great.
GRANT (ph): I’ll go ahead and enjoy Res 102 – thanks, Marilyn.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Same here, Marilyn.
CADE: Enjoy? You guys must have been having it with your morning coffee and doughnuts.
GRANT (ph): As I am recorded as saying in my submission before the commission, humor doesn’t travel very well by audio neither does synthesism.
CADE: Anything else? On Sunday if I get – I just want to do back here – if I get Louie (ph) to brief the – what I’d like to do is have Louie (ph) brief the WHOIS (ph) task force and the transfers at the same time on the – on his document. Does that seem possible for people?
I have a 7:00 a.m. – and – see, and I’m not holding you responsible for Roger’s (ph) scheduling. I have a 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 breakfast on the budget committee.
CHRISTINE (ph): That’s pretty much what I’ve got (INAUDIBLE) because of Roger’s (ph) 7:00 a.m. meeting.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Sorry this is being recorded.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Marilyn, I think that Louie’s (ph) briefing on – both at the same would be an inefficient use of tie because I think these are rather different in – situations and you’ve got – would it be possible for him to do X minutes for one and then X minutes for another rather than to try and put them both together?
CADE: Well, I’m not so sure that – I think the questions raised may be (INAUDIBLE) but I’m not sure that the underlying premises or I mean the issues about what’s in the agreements and the contracts are really the same (INAUDIBLE) subject.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: The effect they have on what do to, if anything, would be rather different. And it’s also a matter of perception if someone asks him and question and he spends all of the – almost all of the available time answering that first question, others might feel left out.
CADE: Let me see what time I can get from him. He has limited time available. And ...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I understand that.
CADE: ... yes – let me see.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I was just proposing to slice and dice whatever time he has into ...
CADE: Let me – let me say, also, that I believe that Bruce (ph) intends to also invite him to address the names council.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK.
CADE: So this would not be public. This would be a private dialog with the – with the task force representatives here.
The other discussion would be for the names and therefore would be Webcast and more publicly available. But let me – let me following, taking your feedback into account, and see what seems feasible.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Great – thanks.
CADE: Yes. Anything else? I appreciate your time. I regret we’re not going to have all of you in Shanghai.
Has everyone noted that there will be a meeting in Europe in December?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Do you have any idea where that’s going to be? Is there any talk about ...
CADE: There are four cities under consideration that I hear. And I probably am partly responsible, as I called up and whined about the fact that I was shocked that there was going to be another meeting.
I’m told that they’re trying to get something logistically close to a major airport. And the cities would be – I believe – and I’m just repeating what I’ve heard – Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London or Paris. In terms of trying to figure out what the major cities are that (INAUDIBLE).
GRANT (ph): And, Marilyn, do we have a date yet?
CADE: I am under the impression it’s the 14th and 15th. I could be wrong on one day.
Jeff (ph), do you know?
JEFF (ph): I don’t know.
CADE: It’s – I think it’s ...
GRANT (ph): (INAUDIBLE)
JEFF (ph): Well, they realize they have to have an annual meeting under their existing bylaws.
CADE: Jeff (ph), you – Jeff (ph), you said that beautifully.
JEFF (ph): Because it’s funny.
GRANT (ph): It actually happens to be true.
CADE: Well ...
GRANT (ph): So besides having an annual meeting, which is (INAUDIBLE) as hell and is usually entirely perfunctory, why (INAUDIBLE)?
CADE: We – at the names council we had talked about – they had another meeting that the names council would try to have a face to face. I have no idea where – what Bruce’s (ph) thinking is on that right now.
I’m thinking that we, as the names council, would have a fair amount to do in thinking about the restructuring of the GNSO or G whatever – GNSO.
And that is the extent of my report.
GRANT (ph): OK.
CADE: Thank you, everyone.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thanks.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thanks, all.
CADE: Christine (ph), congratulations! How soon does this happen?
CHRISTINE (ph): Probably end of November-ish.
CADE: Are you supposed to be – but you’ll be able to stay with the task force until then?
CHRISTINE (ph): Yes.
CADE: OK.
CHRISTINE (ph): Yes.
CADE: Would you – let me think about this. Would you talk to Jeff (ph) and see what his thinking is? Given the timing of the task force and the fact that I think we’re hopeful about closing it ...
CHRISTINE (ph): Yes – we’ve had conversations.
CADE: OK.
CHRISTINE (ph): And we’re waiting to feel out whether or not we’re even going to be done or not.
CADE: OK.
CHRISTINE (ph): I’ve told my constituency that I’m leaving and ...
CADE: OK.
CHRISTINE (ph): ... and that it’s out there if anybody wanted to replace me when I leave.
I think it’s important that I stay on until I leave obviously ...
CADE: Yes.
CHRISTINE (ph): ... but then after that if anyone wanted to participate that might be a good idea although Jeff (ph) seems to ...
As a constituency we pretty much are (INAUDIBLE) ...
CADE: Right.
CHRISTINE (ph): ... group.
CADE: Right.
CHRISTINE (ph): We don’t know but that dialog has been opened so ...
CADE: OK.
CHRISTINE (ph): ... we’ll let you know.
CADE: Sure thing.
CHRISTINE (ph): Great.
CADE: And don’t lose touch with us.
CHRISTINE (ph): I won’t.
CADE: OK.
CHRISTINE (ph): Bye, bye.
CADE: Bye, bye.
END
___________________________
We welcome your feedback on this transcript. Please go to http://www.emediamillworks.com/feedback/ or call Elizabeth Pennell at 301-731-1728 x138.