[gnso-dow123] WHOIS tf 123 draft minutes 17 May 2005
[To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear all, Please find attached the draft minutes of the Whois task force call on 17 May 2005 that include Maria's summary after each agenda item. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3 teleconference
minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 1 2 3 teleconference
minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="17 May 2005" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force 1 2 3
teleconference minutes'"-->
<h4 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task
Forces
1 2 3<br>
<br>
17 May 2005 - Minutes</b></font></h4>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ATTENDEES:<br>
GNSO Constituency representatives:<br>
</b> Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair<br>
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura <br>
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader <br>
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller<br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris <br>
gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs <br>
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade<br>
Intellectual Property Interests
Constituency - Steve Metalitz<br>
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren <br>
<br>
<strong>Liaisons</strong><br>
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Bret Fausett <br>
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer</font> <font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene absent - apologies
<br>
<br>
<b>ICANN Staff</b>: <br>
Maria Farrell Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Officer<br>
<br>
<b>GNSO Secretariat </b>- Glen
de Saint Géry <br>
<br>
<b>Absent:</b><br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth <br>
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher - apologies <br>
Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency
- Marc Schneiders<br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings <br>
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares<br>
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch - apologies <br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia
<br>
</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a
href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20050517-tf123.mp3";>MP3 Recording
</a><br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";>Preliminary
Summary & list of implementation issues and questions regarding the
recommendation on notification </a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Agenda</strong><br>
1. Document management<br>
2. Brief recap on <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00293.html";>third draft of
Whois Terms of Reference</a><br>
3. Discussion on Task force <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/pdfIfPH9oe38C.pdf";>Final
report</a> <br>
<strong><br>
1.
Document management </strong><br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> suggested asking the ICANN staff for ideas on
how to better converge documents and working with Kent Crispin to develop a
template for submitting documents that would be easily and quickly ready for
publishing on the website. Perhaps the major documents that staff work on could
adhere to html format and not word.<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> proposed taking Marilyn Cade's comments as
under advisement and work in html and see how it affected the work of the task
force.<br>
<br>
<span class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">1) Summary
Document file types<o:p></o:p><br>
<o:p></o:p>Decisions</B><o:p></o:p><br>
</span></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Staff to consult internally on preparing major
documents for circulation in .html. <o:p></o:p><br>
</span></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Actions<o:p></o:p><br>
</B></span></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Glen and Maria will consult internally and refer
back to the task force at a later date. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005"><o:p> </o:p></span></font><span
class="218170823-19052005"><o:p></o:p></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>2. <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00293.html";>Third draft of
terms of reference </a></strong></font></P>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
reported that the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 May, 2005, did not vote
on the new terms of reference. Councilors felt more time was needed given the
various issues raised. It was agreed that submissions suggesting additional
modifications to the terms of reference should be made. Council also solicited
input from the task force on how ongoing task force work should be accommodated
in the terms of reference specifically with regard to the work on the
notification provisions and the conflict with local or national privacy laws
topic which was not contemplated in the current terms of reference. There was
informal agreement that those should continue and Jordyn Buchanan and Maria
Farrell suggest language for them to be incorporated into the terms of
reference. <br>
With regard to the timelines, the goals are to resolve the two outstanding
recommendations in the next few weeks and then focus most of the task force
time on the the terms of reference Bruce Tonkin has been developing along with
the GNSO council. <br>
<br>
<span class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">2 Summary
Task force terms of
reference<o:p></o:p></B></span></font></p>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005">The GNSO Council has
not yet finalized the Whois task force’s terms of reference and has
solicited input from the task force on how ongoing task force work items should
be accommodated. <o:p></o:p></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Actions<o:p></o:p></B></span></font></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l1 level1
lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Jordyn and Maria will develop language to
incorporate into the terms of reference the two recommendations currently in
development by the task force. <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B> </span>
</font>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l1 level1
lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">List participants to review the follow-up topics and
prioritise them for future discussion. <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B></span></font></LI>
</UL>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p> </o:p></B></span></font><span
class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B></span><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>3. Discussion on <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/pdfFZ1nR9ZdoC.pdf";>task force
final report</a></strong></font>
<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
clarified that the <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/pdfFZ1nR9ZdoC.pdf";>report
</a>before the task force should be the final document that would be sent to
the GNSO council. The <a
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA";>policy
development process</a> did not specify an additional vote before the report
was sent to the council. The <a
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA";>bylaws
</a>stated that the final report should encompasses the public comments. The
task force could review the recommendations in light of the comments. <br>
Jordyn suggested that if any substantive changes were made in light of the
public comments and the task force discussion, that another vote be solicited,
but if there were no substantive changes, then the previous vote be forwarded
to the council.</font></P>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marilyn
Cade</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> suggested the
following additions and modifications to the report to clarify the process:<br>
-
a cover document explaining that the preliminary report and has had the public
comments pasted in<br>
- 1.2 "Summary of public comments voting on the recommendation"
should be changed the people who provided comments were not voting on the
recommendation. so we need to fix that title. <br>
Marilyn expressed concern about the mechanism by which the present discussion
would be summarised and transmitted to the council so they would understand
the recommendation. If the task force preferred a transmittal document, that
would be in order. <br>
- the last paragraph in the background gave a very different timeframe
assumption from the reality. .</font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn Buchanan agreed
</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
-
to add some additional history which would include the vote, public comments
and their inclusion<br>
- re title 1.2 <br>
-
need to differentiate between 1.2 and 1.3 that there were different public
comment periods on different topics. - to work with Maria to incorporate the
suggestions in a future draft.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn
Buchanan</strong> suggested in response to Marilyn Cade's comment about the
spam filter, to make the recommendation that the list software give a message
to the poster that ‘your message was posted’ or diverted to the
spam list that would help the poster to take corrective action.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
noted that 2 public comments were from participants in the process, 3 were
unsupportive of the recommendation.<br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-tf-rpt/msg00003.html";>Marilyn
Cade made a comment in support</a>, also clarifying some of the purpose. <br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-tf-rpt/msg00000.html";>Alan
Levin</a> commented that he was not in favour because the recommendations did
not clearly that consent or checking the box only had to be done once during
the relationship with the registrar. <br>
This topic had actually come up in a previous discussion when Paul Stahura made
the point that if someone registered names often they should not have to go
through the procedures more than once. Reviewing the recommendations, there
seems to be some ambiguity on this point.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>
commented that from her experience users had to be reminded on a frequently.<br>
Her understanding of the recommendation was that this reminder would be
presented to the registrant so they can acknowledge it before they proceeded
with the registration.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
suggested getting consensus within the task force on the issue.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Paul Stahura</strong>
commented that some registrars registered many names every day, and it did not
seem practical for them to click on a notice 10 times a day.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan
</strong>summarised the options on the table. <br>
1. each domain name required explicit acknowledgement of the conditions.<br>
2.
each batch of domain names registered at one time. <br>
3.
each relationship. Fourth is maybe <br>
4.
variations, like number 2 unless at the time they create the relationship
they agree they don’t want to be notified any more, or every third batch,
or other variations.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn
Buchanan</strong> commented that different registrars had different practices
with different customers. At register.com, people are required to agree, and
are provided with a service agreement, each time they register a batch of
domain names. Whereas corporate clients sign a one time agreement. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Paul Stahura</strong>
commented that in the case of ENOM, resellers showed the agreement to the
registrants when they registered names. If they set up an account all the
agreements shown to the registrants were for all the registrations that were
made in that account, not every time they registered a name. They were reminded
on a yearly basis along with the reminder for accurate whois data for each
name, each year. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Steve Metalitz</strong>
suggested looking at the text of the recommendation. <br>
Registrars have to do 3 things.<br>
1. Tell the registrant during the registration process. Secondly, if the
registrar presents the disclosures with the agreement, it has to have them
broken out of the agreement or separately. Either way they have to acknowledge
each time that they have read and understood the disclosures. It appears to be
flexible and accommodates a lot of different models.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Paul Stahura
</strong>agreed that the process was flexible but since</font> <font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> the discussion had already taken place
there was perhaps a need to spell out an example. Would you consider someone,
who had gone through the whole process, six months later registering a domain
name, not going through the notice process a second time?.<br>
<strong><br>
Steve Metalitz</strong> responded that in his opinion, what happened on
day one of the registration process was in compliance with the notification
requirement.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>
proposed that the level of detail belonged to the policy implementation of the
recommendation which was not envisioned in the pdp process. Personally and on
behalf of the Commercial and Business Users constituency she felt comfortable
that there would be a "regular" ( undefined) disclosure that met the
three parts in the recommendation.<br>
<br>
From the discussion that ensued, <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> requested
whether the issue could be forwarded to the Council with the suggestion that
what the definition of "during the registration process" should be
defined as, should be determined by an implementation group which could be
composed of the task force or was it thought that the implementation group
should be formed separately.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan
</strong>commented that there were 2 issues<br>
-
agreed that the question of once per batch, domain name, etc. could be
deferred to an implementation group - but a periodic notification requirement
appeared to be policy change that should be reflected in the text.<br>
<strong><br>
Tony Harris</strong> commented that notification should be when registering
for the first time and every time a registration was renewed, and in the case
of an automatic renewal process an email could be sent to the registrant with
the automatic renewal.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Paul Stahura
</strong>commented that emails were not automatically sent to customers whose
domain names were renewed automatically. With regard to registrations for 10
year periods, a Whois accuracy notification was sent once a year.</font><font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong><br>
Jordyn Buchanan</strong> saw possible agreement for revised recommendations
that would be accepted by the council: <br>
- to tie additional notification onto the wdrp notice. And another, returning
to the general set of comments. Bruce <br>
- to put such notification in a privacy policy</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Steve Metalitz</strong>
reminded the group that discussion of details belonged in an implementation
group</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tony Harris</strong>
suggested a process whereby when a registration is completed there would be a
reply to indicate that it was in order and in that email the registrant could
be asked to acknowledge that the disclosure section has been read. However this
was not in the current RAA and a new process would have to be created to make
it obligatory.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan
</strong>asked the task force to respond that it was unlikely that the
recommendation would become consensus policy given the opposition from the
registrar and registry constituencies and the weighting of votes at the
council level. Thus, would it be worthwhile to revisit the recommendations in
light of the discussion and the public comments or should they be forwarded to
the council in the present state, recognizing that there is additional work by
the implementation committee, assuming that they are approved by council.<br>
<strong><br>
Tony Harris</strong> considered it was worth revisiting to give value to
the work that the task force had done <br>
Steve Metalitz considered that the registrars and registry representatives
had had adequate time to consider the recommendation and that it should be
referred to an implementation committee.<br>
<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> clarified that if a policy was voted on in
council and did not receive the required two thirds majority, but a majority,
council could send it to an implementation committee or to the board as policy
recommended by the council which would thus not be binding as in the case of
consensus policy.<br>
<br>
<strong>Suggested options:</strong><br>
-
with the present discussion it might be feasible to note the policy, the vote,
the questions raised about implementation and the task force could make a
recommendation about how to explore the implementation issue<br>
- for the task force to do more work on implementation itself before sending
the report forward<br>
- the periodic notification issue would not be an implementation issue but a
new adjustment to the recommendations<br>
<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan proposed</strong><br>
<br>
1. Working with Maria on to document the questions and issues arising out of
the discussion that may become implementation questions<br>
- there was more value in forwarding a set of recommendations that was likely
to pass and become consensus policy<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2 Encourage on list discussion
of possible suggestions, <br>
-
language to forward to the implementation group, <br>
-
adjustments to the recommendations that address these issues<br>
<br>
3 If broad support in the task force for adjustments to the recommendations,
they should be modified and discussed before forwarding to the council.
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Time frame:<br>
-
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">to be completed in the next
week unless a vote is called for on the adjustments<br>
<br>
- if not, the task force forwards the recommendations to the council.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>
commented that implementation groups can only implement policy, not change it.
Guidance or input from the task force to an implementation working group may
be considered.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Steve Metaltz </strong>did
not object to the proposals but stated that they were not consistent with the
pdp, and that the report should be forwarded to the Board. It degraded the
work of the task force if after 6 months new issues came up at the last second
and were considered. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
responded that part of the previous step was to attempt to reconcile
constituency concerns. It was not consistent with the pdp but the task force
agreed that it would be useful to react to the public comments.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>
proposed that providing a definition for ‘during the registration
process’ may result in sufficient modification that may help to reach
agreement in the task force. </font></p>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span
class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">3 Summary
Final task force report on notification<o:p></o:p></font></B></span></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005">Maria prepared the final task
force report, incorporating summaries of the public comments. Unless a
substantial changes is made to the recommendations of the report, there will be
no further vote on it by the task force. <o:p></o:p></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Decisions:<o:p></o:p></B></span></font></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Editing changes will be made to the final report;
changing of the title of section 1.2 on public comments to differentiate
between different public comment periods on different topics, complete summary
of task force work process to date.<o:p></o:p> </span>
</font>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">A list of implementation issues and questions will
be circulated to the list for online discussion on possible suggestions to
forward to the implementation group or adjustments to the recommendation.
If there is broad support for adjustments to the recommendations, the task
force will modify the recommendations and discuss them further before
forwarding to the Council. If no substantive changes are made and broadly
agreed by Tuesday 24 May, the task force report will be forwarded in its
current state to the Council. <o:p></o:p></span></font><font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></LI>
</UL>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Actions:<o:p></o:p></B></span></font></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Maria to incorporate changes to the final task force
report. <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B> </span>
</font>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Maria/Glen to inquire about the capability of the
list software to give confirmations of messages sent to the public comment
forums. <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B> </span>
</font>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Jordyn/Maria to prepare a list of implementation
issues and questions discussed on the call and circulate to the list for online
discussion.<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B> </span>
</font>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Following any subsequent mailing list discussion,
Jordyn will send a note to the Council advising them of the steps being taken
to resolve any outstanding undefined issues before 2<SUP>nd</SUP> June 2005
(date of the next GNSO Council meeting). <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B></span></font></LI>
</UL>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><span class="218170823-19052005"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Topics for next week’s
call:<o:p></o:p></B></span></font></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo5; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Follow-up discussion on recommendation on
notification<o:p></o:p> </span>
</font>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo5; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span
class="218170823-19052005">Discussion of the form of the recommendation on
conflicts of laws – policy or advice?<o:p></o:p></span></font><span
class="218170823-19052005"><o:p></o:p></span></LI>
</UL>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in"><span
class="218170823-19052005"><o:p> </o:p></span></P>
</DIV>
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
thanked everyone for their participation and the call ended at 17:00 CET </font>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h1> </h1>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p> </p>
|