[gnso-dow123] Whois tf 123: Correct version of draft minutes 17 May 2005
[To:gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann;org] Please find attached the revised/corrected draft minutes for the Whois task force teleconfernce on May 17, 2005. Thank you Marilyn for spotting the typos, in fact I sent out the uncorrected version without realising! Sorry about the confusion! 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 convert documents and working with Kent Crispin to develop a
template for submitting documents that would make publishing easier and
quicker. 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 the task force make submissions
suggesting additional modifications to the terms of reference. Council also
solicited input from the task force on how the ongoing work should be
accommodated in the terms of reference specifically with regard to the work on
recommendations 1 and 2 as these were not included in the current terms of
reference. There was informal agreement from the task force that the work on
the 2 recommendations should continue and that Jordyn Buchanan and Maria
Farrell suggest language incorporating them into the terms of reference. <br>
Timeline:<br>
- resolve the two outstanding recommendations in the next few weeks and<br>
-
then focus most of the task force time on the the new terms of reference<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:<br>
-
a cover document explaining that the public comments had been added to the
preliminary report <br>
- 1.2 "Summary of public comments voting on the recommendation"
should be changed as the people who provided comments were not voting on the
recommendation. <br>
Marilyn expressed concern about how the present discussion would be summarised
and transmitted to the council so they would fully understand the
recommendation and suggested a transmittal document.<br>
- the last paragraph in the 'background' section 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, and the public
comments <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, recommending 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 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 state 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
seemed 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 frequently reminded.<br>
Her understanding of the recommendation was that the registrant would have to
acknowledge the reminder before proceeding 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 registrants 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 required explicit
acknowledgement of the conditions. <br>
3.
each relationship required explicit acknowledgement of the conditions. <br>
4.
variations; such as in number 2 unless at the time they create the
relationship they agree they don’t want to be notified any more, or
notification with every third batch, or other variations.<br>
<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> commented that different registrars had
different practices with different customers. At register.com, people are
provided with a service agreement, to which they have to agree, 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 an account was set up, all the
agreements shown to the registrants were for all the registrations made in that
account, and not every time a name was registered. They were reminded on a
yearly basis at the same time as the reminder was sent out for accurate whois
data for each name.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Steve Metalitz</strong>
said that from the recommendation, Registrars had to do 3 things:<br>
<br>
1. Tell the registrant during the registration process. <br>
2.
If the registrar presented the disclosures with the agreement, it had to have
them broken out of the agreement or separately. <br>
3.
Either way they would have to acknowledge each time that they had read and
understood the disclosures. <br>
It appeared to be flexible and accommodated 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 issue had been discussed previously,
there was perhaps a need to spell out an example. "Would you consider
someone, who had gone through the whole process, six months later coming back
to register 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 being discussed 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 with a "regular" ( undefined)
disclosure that met the three parts in the recommendation.<br>
<br>
>From the discussion that ensued, <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> requested that
>the issue be forwarded to the Council with the suggestion that "during
>the registration process" be defined.</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 given 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<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 was completed, a reply would
indicate that it was in order and in that email reply, the registrant could be
asked to acknowledge having read the disclosure section. 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>commented 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, he asked
the task force whether it would be worthwhile revisiting the recommendations
in light of the discussion and the public comments or whether they should be
forwarded to the council in the present state, recognizing that there was
additional work to be done by the implementation committee, if they were
approved by council.<br>
<strong><br>
Tony Harris</strong> considered it was worth revisiting to give value to the
work the task force had done <br>
<strong>Steve Metalitz</strong> 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 recommendation was voted on
in the council and did not receive the required two thirds majority, but simply
a majority, council could decide to send it to an implementation committee or
to the ICANN Board as 'policy recommended by the council ' which would not be
binding as in the case of consensus policy.<br>
<br>
<strong>Suggested options:</strong><br>
-
taking into account the present discussion it might be feasible for the task
force to 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 moment
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 a definition be provided for ‘during the registration
process’ which could result in sufficient modification for 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
substantial changes are 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>
|