[gnso-dow123] Whois combined task force draft minutes 24 May 2005
[To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Attached please find the draft minutes, with Maria's summary included after each item, of the task force call held on 24 May 2005. Please let me know if you would like any changes 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="24 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>
24 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 - Tim Ruiz (alternate) <br>
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller<br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris <br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth <br>
gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs<br>
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman<br>
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade<br>
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares<br>
Intellectual Property Interests
Constituency - Steve Metalitz<br>
<br>
<strong>Ex Officio</strong><br>
Bruce Tonkin - GNSO Council chair <br>
<br>
<strong>Liaisons</strong><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>
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren - apologies
<br>
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency
- Marc Schneiders<br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller - apologies <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings <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-20050524-tf123.mp3";>MP3
Recording</a><br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00323.html";>Preliminary
Summary
</a><br>
<br>
<strong> Agenda: <br>
1. Follow up discussion on recommendation on notification. <br>
List of implementation issues and questions regarding the recommendation on
notification <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html</a>
<br>
2. Discussion on the form of the recommendation on conflicts with local law -
policy or advice <br>
<br>
Item 1 Discussion on the form of the recommendation on conflicts with local law
- policy or advice <br>
Jordyn Buchanan </strong>asked for comments whether recommendation 2 should be
forwarded to the ICANN staff or the ICANN Board as advice given that there
seems to be some ability to deal with such situations as in the case of .name,
or as a formal policy recommendation which could, if approved by the GNSO
Council and the ICANN Board, become binding consensus policy.<br>
<strong>Steve Metalitz</strong> posted to the list the <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/docIz7oayTmrP.doc";>last draft of
the recommendations</a> along with a <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00316.html";>thread
incorporating the discussion on the topic. </a> and commented that without
knowing exactly what was in the document, it was difficult to comment on
whether it should be advice or policy.<br>
<strong>Tom Keller</strong> commented that the recommendation could be both
policy and advice because it was generally agreed that there should be an open
and transparent process for ICANN staff to use if such a problem arose.<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> added the option that had been discussed in
previous calls, to formally recommend a policy that there should be a process
and advice about one possible implementation of it to the ICANN staff.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>, in agreement with Tom Keller, commented that
for a consensus policy there should be a process and the task force could
provide advice on what the process should include to provide enough flexibility
given the unique situations that may arise in different countries.<br>
<strong>Kathy Kleiman</strong> stated that a great deal of time, work and
thought had gone into recommendation 2 and the NCUC would like to see it become
a policy because advice did not offer as much clarity and consistency on how
everyone would be treated.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>asked whether the NCUC would agree with her
proposal that there be a policy but that the process itself be left as advice
or did the NCUC want the entire process be consensus policy.<br>
<strong>Kathy Kleiman</strong> commented that it was clear what was meant by
"policy" but " advice" needed more explanation.<br>
<strong>Paul Stahura</strong> commented that policy could be too constraining
on ICANN as the registrar community represented a wide range of national laws
thus he preferred the recommendation as providing advice.<br>
<strong>Tim Ruiz</strong> reminded the task force of the <a
href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>Registrar
Accreditation Agreement section 3.7.2<br>
</a>3.7.2 Registrar shall abide by applicable laws and governmental
regulations and commented that as a registrar, Godaddy had always had advice
from ICANN on how to deal with a problem to be in compliance with the RAA.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> commented that: <br>
- given there was general support for the idea that if the registrars
encountered problems, ICANN was there to help deal with the problem.<br>
- given many members of the task force supported the idea of an acknowledged
process, using a neutral term, not advice or policy – <br>
- if it
were advice, how binding would the the advice be, <br>
-
if it were policy, how would it avoid being restrictive and provide enough
flexibility for ICANN to deal with individual problems registrars encountered
? <br>
- as an individual and member of the Commercial and Business users
constituency, she suggested a compromise that supported the idea that there
should be awareness and sensitivity of ICANN staff being able to address
individual issues as they arose. She proposed there be a policy statement and
a process, with the task force work attached as an example of the process to
be provided as advice to ICANN. However, the responsibility lay with the task
force to decide whether enough work had been done on what the advice should
be.<br>
<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan </strong>summarised that the suggestion put forward
was to have a relatively short consensus policy, perhaps along the lines that
" ICANN will develop and document a procedure for resolving conflicts
between local or national privacy laws and registry / registrars’
obligations to publish WHOIS data’, that is a couple of sentences to say
ICANN needs to develop a procedure. As a supplement the task force, after
agreement, would develop a transmittal document to the staff, that included a
procedure for the staff to consider which could give them the flexibility to
adapt over time.<br>
He asked whether it would meet the NCUC requirements
to have a policy but leave the details to the ICANN staff to develop and
change from time to time.<br>
<strong>Kathy Kleiman</strong> commented that the recommendation had been well
developed and asked for the question to be left in the balance until the exact
text was available as the wording was important and if it was advice what
exactly the advice would be?<br>
<strong>Wendy Seltzer</strong> agreed that there could be flexibility in a
policy recommendation but the appropriate way to recognize the task force's
effort spent developing the recommendation would be by making it a policy
decision.<br>
<strong>Tony Harris </strong>asked if tiered access became a reality, would
national law and privacy considerations still be an issue and require
policy?<br>
Some task force members felt it was difficult to know and it could depend on
the domicile of the registrar.<br>
<strong>Tony Harris</strong> suggested adding a caveat that a possible
solution would be to automate a procedure when completing a registration that
a template would be filled in which would indicate to the data base that in
certain countries there were privacy laws and the data of that subject should
not be exhibited.<br>
<strong>Steve Metalitz </strong>said he would be happy if a policy was
established but then there needed to be a procedure and a recommendation on
what that procedure would be.<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> reflected on <strong>Kathy Kleiman</strong>
and <strong>Wendy Seltzer's </strong>remarks and said that it may be possible
to bifurcate the current recommendation into 2 parts. <br>
-
the shorter policy recommendations<br>
- select from the present recommendation
the details defining who does what and at what point in the process. It might
be desirable to incorporate certain elements on notice and information to the
community along the way.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Paul Stahura</strong>
referred to his <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00249.html";>posting</a> on 3
May 2005 as an example that the the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"> registry / registrar would have to exhaust the options under their
current contractual framework before they asked for an exemption.<br>
"
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If a Registrar is allowed to
offer "privacy-enhanced services" that are allowed under the current RAA and
that offering such services would bring them into compliance with their
national laws, BUT CHOOSES NOT TO OFFER SUCH SERVICES, then that registrar
would NOT be allowed to provide "privacy-enhanced services" that differ from
the current RAA, correct?<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> If correct, then add "and
IF AND ONLY IF you cannot modify your current practices so that you are
simultaneously in compliance with the current RAA and your national law" So if,
for example, putting all your names on "domains by proxy" (or whatever) is
allowed by RAA and does not conflict with your national laws, then you must do
so before you get special exemption from RAA.<br>
<strong>Ken Stubbs </strong>commented that there were currently 10 – 15
million domain names in thick registries and expressed concern about:<br>
-
conflicts between domiciles of registrars and registries. Registrars may be
obligated not to disclose data that the registries could be obligated to
disclose because of the conflicts in domicile.<br>
-
potential conflicts between tiered access roles, such as where would one go to
get the access? to the registry or the registrar. <br>
He emphasised that there should be consistency in the
methodology.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn
Buchanan</strong> suggested splitting up the document into policy and
recommendation of how to implement the procedure capturing the present
discussion and elements such as requesting exemptions may be added as advice
to the staff. <br>
<br>
<strong>Steve Metalitz</strong> and <strong>Kathy Kleiman</strong> offered to
do the redrafting of the recommendation in two sections.<br>
<br>
</font><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><font
face="Arial" size="2"><b style=""><span style="font-family:
Georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><font
size="3"><strong>1<span
style=""> Summary
</span>Recommendation 1 – conflict with national laws
<o:p></o:p></strong></font></span></font></span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><strong><span style=""><span
style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span style="font-family:
Georgia;"><font face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3">The task force discussed
whether to proceed with developing Recommendation 1 as a consensus policy or as
advice (to ICANN staff / the Board), or as a combination of both.<span
style="">
</span><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><strong><span style=""><span
style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span style="font-family:
Georgia;"><o:p><font face="Arial" size="2"><font
size="3"> </font></font></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></strong><span
style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span
style="font-family: Georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font face="Arial"
size="2"><font size="3"><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><b style=""><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Decisions</font></b></span></span></span></span><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></font></font></font></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font size="2"
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><span style=""><font size="4">The task force agreed to develop the
recommendation in two sections: as a policy which includes a procedure,
accompanied by a recommendation on how to implement that procedure.<span
style="">
</span><o:p></o:p></font></span></span></span></span></font></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font size="4" face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><b
style=""><o:p> </o:p></b></span></span></span></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font size="4" face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><b
style="">Actions<o:p></o:p></b></span></span></span></span></font></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font size="4"
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><span style="">Steve Metalitz and Kathy Kleiman to draft a revised
recommendation in two sections.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span> <span
style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span style="">Jordyn Buchanan to
provide input to Steve and Kathy in the form of thoughts and notes from the
call. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span> </font></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font size="4"
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><span style="">Task force members will continue to use the mailing
list to discuss this issue.<span style="">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></font></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font size="4" face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""><span
style=""><o:p>Item 2</o:p></span></span></span></span></font><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>. Follow up discussion on recommendation on
notification. <br>
List of implementation issues and questions regarding the recommendation on
notification <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html</a>
<br>
</strong></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font size="4" face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style=""><span
style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></span></font><font size="4"><span
style=""><span style=""><span style="font-family:
Georgia;"><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></font><span
style=""><span style=""><span style="font-family:
Georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> referred to the set of issues
that were identified as a result of the task force discussion on 17 May 2005
for the purpose of forwarding some to an implementation group, or to
potentially modify the recommendation if the task force held a strong view. <br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";>List of
implementation issues and questions regarding the recommendation on
notification</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) How often should the registrant
see (and acknowledge) the notifications relating to the use of their contact
data?<br>
- Once per domain name<br>
- Once per batch of domain names<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Once per relationship with
the registrant<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Some variation of the
above</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2) Should the registrar and
registrant be able to mutually agree to modify when the notifications are
made?</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 3) Should the registrant be
periodically reminded of the use of their contact information in the Whois
system? e.g. with an annual request to update any inaccurate information. If
so, how is this reconciled with requirement #3 (that the registrant must obtain
a separate </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">acknowledgment of
this notification)?</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4) [From Bruce's comment] Is
there a more appropriate way to notify the registrant that their data will be
used in the Whois system?</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5) Should an implementation group
work to define the precise meaning of 'during the registration process'?<br>
<strong><br>
Marilyn Cade</strong> commented on her extensive experience with the linkage
between an implementation working group, which was not a task force or
committee, and the work that a policy task force did. She proposed sending
guidance and the benefit of the task force work to the council and through the
council to a working group. She considered it likely that the whois task force
would continue to work on other issues while the implementation working group
was set up and suggested that the task force should offer consultation as
needed to support the working group. It was usual that the working group
included representation from the groups that have to implement the
recommendation and from the user community and the At Large Advisory Committee.
The conversation had on the last call, 17 May 2005 should be sent to the
council and the working group.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn
Buchanan</strong> commented that the list of identified issues and some
guidance would be sent forward.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Paul Stahura</strong>
commented that the issues mentioned on the 17 May call were examples of why he
believed that the registrar constituency came up with the registry constituency
modifications of the recommendation but was not recommending any changes other
than those which the registrar constituency had voted.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Steve Metalitz</strong>
remarked that the list had been out for approximately 5 days, there had been
one comment and he suggested that the recommendation be sent forward to the
Council for the council to vote on as consensus policy.<br>
<strong>Tom Keller</strong> agreed.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> proposed sending the recommendation to the
council with a transmittal letter that would include the list of issues that
should be discussed by an implementation working group.<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> asked whether there were any objections to the
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";>list of
issues</a> being included?<br>
<br>
<strong>Paul Stahura</strong> commented that ICANN did not require a
registrar to have a website to display WHOIS information, registrations could
be taken by phone, and other means. He suggested that the implementation group
should consider what would happen if a registrar did not have a website?<br>
<strong>Steve Metalitz </strong>responded that details could be worked out by
an implementation group and he did not agree with all the issues on the list
and suggested sending the recommendation and not the list.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tim Ruiz</strong>
asked how <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";>the
list </a>, if it was included, would be positioned with the recommendation as
not everyone agreed those were issues or that they were the only
issues.</font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn
Buchanan</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> suggested
that <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";>the
list</a> would be included as part of a transmittal document to the Council
with the final report, indicating that following issues were identified as
potentially appropriate topics for further consideration by an implementation
group if the council chose to form such a group.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
proposed polling the task force on the question:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">whether the task force
supported the inclusion of the<a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html";> list of
implementation issues and questions identified in call on 17 May, 2005 </a>as
well as the issues identified by Paul Stahura today, in the transmittal
document to council, as topics identified by the task force for further
discussion. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>In support : Marilyn
Cade, David Fares as long as there was agreement on all issues, David Maher,
Tony Harris, Paul Stahura with the caveat that it was an exhaustive list, <br>
Against:
Steve Metalitz and Tom Keller but would not object with the caveats that Paul
Stahura mentioned that not every one agreed that the issues were valid
implementation issues and there may be other implementation issues. <br>
Abstention: Kathy Kleiman<br>
No vote recorded for (dropped off the call) Ken Stubbs and Greg
Ruth</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Each constituency voted, except
for the one abstention, there seemed to be support with the caveat that not
everyone on the task force agreed all issues were worthy of further
consideration and the list was not exhaustive. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Maria Farrell</strong>
summarised the changes that had been made to the <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/doc5WOSJ5eau3.doc";>Whois task
force final report </a>on recommendation 1 improving notification and
consent:<br>
<br>
Page 2 Section 1 Introduction and background<br>
The following paragraphs on background were added:<br>
</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ICANN staff compiled the
recommendation, constituency statements, previous relevant public comments, and
other relevant materials into a draft Preliminary Task Force Report which was
revised by the combined Whois Task Force and finalized on 18 April 2005 . The
revised Preliminary Task Force Report was voted on by the task force
constituencies in an email vote that concluded on 22 nd April 2005 . The
results of the vote were incorporated into the Final Task Force Report (section
1.3). <br>
</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The <em>Final Task Force
Report on recommendations for improving notification and consent for the use of
contact data in the Whois system</em> was published on the ICANN website for
public comments from 23 April 2005 to 12 May 2005 . Those public comments are
now incorporated in this document. The revised <em> Final Task Force Report on
recommendations for improving notification and consent for the use of contact
data in the Whois system </em> will be submitted to the GNSO Council for
discussion at its meeting on 2 nd June 2005 . </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Two headings were changed to
obviate confusion between different public comment periods.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.1 Text of recommendation<br>
1.2 Summary of public comments on the Final Task Force report (2005)
<br>
3 Public comment report 2003 - 2004<br>
<br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> proposed that the heading 1.2 Summary
of public comments on the Final Task Force report (2005) be changed to
read:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.2 Summary of public comments on
the Preliminary Task Force report (2005)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan
</strong>proposed that assuming no substantive changes were made to the
document after task force members had had the opportunity to revisit it, the
Final report would be sent to the GNSO Council on Thursday 26 May respecting
the timeline for documents to be submitted for consideration by the Council.
However, if there were more substantive edits, the task force would meet on
Tuesday 31 May before finalizing the final report.</font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn
Buchanan</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> suggested
deferring next week’s call 31 May 2005 and scheduling a call for 7 June
2005. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Bruce Tonkin,
</strong>who rejoined the call, commented that if the Final Report on
recommendation 1 was to be considered by the Council at its meeting on Thursday
June 2, it should be submitted to the council by Thursday 26 May 2005. Bruce
suggested that the task force concentrate on the policy element of the
recommendation 2 and get it launched out for public comment and follow the
policy development process for the policy portion.</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
thanked everyone for their participation and the call ended at 16:45 CET <br>
</font></p>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=2
face="Arial"><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK4"><font
size="4"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">2<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count:
1"> Summary
</SPAN>Recommendation 2 – improving notice and consent</font></B><font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><O:P></O:P><SPAN
style="mso-bidi-font-family: 'Courier New'">The task force discussed whether
any substantive changes needed to be made to the final task force report and
also whether/in what form guidance on implementation should be provided in the
transmittal to the GNSO Council.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The guidance discussion was mostly
based on the list of implementation issues provided to the mailing list and
with suggested changes by Steve Metalitz
(</SPAN></font></font></SPAN></SPAN><font size="4" face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><A
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00315.html";><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK4"><SPAN
style="mso-bidi-font-family: 'Courier
New'">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00315.html</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK4"><SPAN
style="mso-bidi-font-family: 'Courier New'">).
<O:P></O:P><O:P> </O:P><O:P> <br>
</O:P>No substantive changes to the recommendations in the <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>final task force report were made.
<O:P></O:P><O:P> </O:P>A vote was held on the question ‘whether we
should include the issues identified in last week’s call and identified
by Paul Stahura today be included in the transmittal to the
Council’.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><O:P></O:P><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> <br>
<br>
</SPAN><O:P></O:P></SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="mso-bidi-font-family: 'Courier New'">Decisions
</SPAN></B><O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></font></FONT></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font size="4" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK4">The list
of implementation issues will be sent to the Council with the recommendation,
accompanied by caveats that they are not agreed on by everyone in the task
force, all issues are worthy of further consideration and the list is not
exhaustive.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><O:P></O:P></B></SPAN></SPAN> </font>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font size="4" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK4">If no
further substantive changes to the recommendations in the final task force
report are made by Thursday 26 May 2005. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun:
yes"> </SPAN>If substantive changes are made, a task force call will be
held on Tuesday 31<SUP>st</SUP> May to discuss before finalizing the report for
submission to the GNSO Council. <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><O:P></O:P></B></SPAN></SPAN></font></LI>
</UL>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="4" face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:
OLE_LINK4"><O:P> </O:P><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">Actions<O:P></O:P></B></SPAN></SPAN></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 39pt; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1
lfo5; tab-stops: list 39.0pt"><font size="4" face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK4"><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>If no substantive changes are received by Thursday 26 May,
Maria will send the final task force report on recommendation 1 to the GNSO
Council ahead of their next meeting on Thursday 2<SUP>nd</SUP> June 2005. <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><O:P></O:P></B></SPAN></SPAN></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="4" face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark:
OLE_LINK4"><O:P> </O:P><O:P> </O:P><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">3<SPAN style="mso-tab-count:
1"> </SPAN>Next task
force call:<O:P></O:P></B></SPAN></SPAN></font></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list
.5in"><font size="4" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK3"><SPAN style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK4">As
presently advised, there will be no call on Tuesday 31<SUP>st</SUP> May
2005.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN><O:P></O:P></SPAN></SPAN></font></LI>
</UL>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in"><font size="4"
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><O:P> </O:P></font></P>
</DIV>
<font size="4" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
</font>
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h1> </h1>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p> </p>
|