Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Meetings in Mar Del Plata

GNSO Public Forum Real Time Captioning

Monday, April 6, 2005

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Public Forum held on 6 April, 2005 in Mar Del Plata, Argentina. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'D JUST LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE GNSO PUBLIC FORUM.
MY NAME'S BRUCE TONKIN, AND I'M CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
THE PURPOSE OF THE GNSO COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM, WE HAD A PUBLIC FORUM IN CAPE TOWN, AND WE'RE HAVING ANOTHER ONE HERE.
WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN THIS FORUM IS REALLY PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC SOME PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN IN OTHER FORUMS.
SO THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY EARLIER THIS WEEK HAS HAD FURTHER LOOKS AT THE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH CONTENTION FOR DELETING NAMES.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT MARKET-BASED MECHANISMS TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
THE -- IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCES, WE'VE HAD PRESENTATIONS ON WHAT THE MARKET'S DOING TO PROVIDE CONTACTABILITY SERVICES.
SO THE ABILITY TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT BUT AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION OF THE REGISTRANT.
SO THE FOCUS OF THIS FORUM IS REALLY TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE MARKET.
AND THIS WILL HOPEFULLY INFORM THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT -- WE HAVE IN THE GNSO ASKED FOR AN ISSUES REPORT ON CONTENTION FOR DELETING NAMES.
AND WE'RE WORKING THROUGH SOME ISSUES ABOUT WHAT SORT OF POLICIES DO WE NEED IN PLACE TO IMPROVE AND BETTER CONTROL ACCESS TO WHOIS INFORMATION AND BETTER IMPROVE ACCURACY OF WHOIS INFORMATION.
THAT'S -- SO THE SESSION HERE WILL BE MOSTLY, I GUESS, AN EDUCATION SESSION AND THIS CERTAINLY WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
I WOULD PREFER THAT IF WE END UP WITH A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I WILL PROBABLY FAVOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T ALREADY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THESE MODELS.
THE FIRST TOPIC IS HAVING A LOOK AT SOME OF THE MARKET MECHANISMS FOR TRANSFER OF NAMES BETWEEN REGISTRANTS.
DOMAIN NAMES ARE ESSENTIALLY REALLY GOVERNED BY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A REGISTRAR AND AN END USER, WHICH IS THE REGISTRAR/REGISTRANT AGREEMENT.
THAT AGREEMENT SETS VARIOUS RIGHTS TO USE THE DOMAIN NAME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
THOSE RIGHTS CAN BE TRADED SO THAT A REGISTRANT CAN EFFECTIVELY SELL THEIR RIGHTS TO A DOMAIN NAME TO ANOTHER REGISTRANT.
AND THAT MARKET HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR MORE OR LESS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF COMPETITION IN THE DOMAIN NAME AREA.
AND IN THE EARLY DAYS, I GUESS THERE WAS A LOT OF FOCUS ON CYBERSQUATTING, WHERE SOMEONE HAS REGISTERED A BRAND NAME AND THEN TRIED TO SELL THAT BRAND BACK TO THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THAT BRAND.
I THINK THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE MARKET IS PROBABLY, WITH THINGS LIKE UDRP AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS, HAS BECOME A SMALLER PART OF THE MARKET.
OTHER PARTS OF THE MARKET WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRANSFERRING NAMES ARE WHERE A NAME JUST HAS GENERIC VALUE, IT'S JUST A WORD OUT OF A DICTIONARY, IT'S NOT A BRAND NAME, AND IT'S A POPULAR WORD, AND PEOPLE TRADE THOSE WORDS FAIRLY FREELY.
THEN THERE ARE NAMES THAT HAVE BEEN IN USE FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN HAVE BEEN DELETED AT THE REGISTRY BECAUSE THE USER NO LONGER WISHES TO OPERATE A WEB SITE USING THAT IDENTIFIER OR WISHES TO OPERATE AN E-MAIL USING THAT IDENTIFIER.
BECAUSE THOSE NAMES DO, HOWEVER, HAVE A LOT OF INTERNET TRAFFIC HEADING TOWARDS THAT PARTICULAR NAME, THAT NAME HAS VALUE.
AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN HAPPENING AT THE REGISTRY IS THAT THERE IS MASSIVE CONTENTION, THEN, TO GET THOSE NAMES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MARKET VALUE WELL ABOVE THE REGISTRATION FEE THAT THE REGISTRY CHARGES.
SO WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF, I GUESS, INSTABILITY STARTING TO OCCUR IN THAT AREA OF THE MARKET.
AND SO TODAY IT'S JUST SORT OF LOOKING AT SOME OF THE NEW MODELS OR NEW MARKET-BASED MECHANISMS THAT ARE EMERGING WITHIN THE REGISTRAR MARKET AND ALSO TRY TO EXPLORE WHAT ARE THE USER ISSUES HERE.
ARE USERS APPROPRIATELY PROTECTED?
ARE THERE ANY ISSUES FOR SECURITY AND STABILITY IN THE USE OF THE DNS?
SO THE FIRST PRESENTER HERE WILL BE VERISIGN.
>>DAVID STEWART: GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME'S DAVID STEWART.
I WORK WITH VERISIGN.
THIS MORNING, I WOULD LIKE TO OUTLINE TO EVERYONE HERE A PROPOSAL THAT REFLECTS FEEDBACK THAT VERISIGN HAS COLLECTED FROM THE REGISTRAR AND FROM THE INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS IN THE COMMUNITY OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS ON A POTENTIAL SOLUTION FOR THE CONTENTION FOR DELETED NAMES.
THIS LEVEL OF EFFORT HAS GONE OVER, LIKE I SAY, THE PAST YEAR.
AND WE HAD A SESSION DISCUSSING DIFFERENT PROPOSALS IN CAPE TOWN LAST YEAR.
SINCE THEN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH VARIOUS REGISTRARS; WE'VE BEEN DISTRIBUTING DIFFERENT PROPOSALS AND COLLECTING FEEDBACK.
AND WHAT I'LL OUTLINE FOR YOU TODAY IS A COLLECTION OF THAT FEEDBACK.
AND A SOLUTION THAT I THINK COLLECTIVELY THE CHANNEL AND THE REGISTRY BELIEVES COULD BE A VERY EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE SOLUTION FOR THE CONTENTION FOR DELETED NAMES.

THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE, AS WE CALL IT, IS EFFECTIVELY AN AUCTION SERVICE THAT WOULD RUN DURING THE FIVE-DAY PENDING DELETE.
AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE ILLUSTRATED ON THIS SLIDE HERE IS A PROCESS THAT WE'RE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH OF EXPIRING NAMES BEING DELETED.
WE HAVE THE 45-DAY AUTO RENEWAL GRACE PERIOD, WE HAVE THE 30-DAY REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD FOLLOWED BY A FIVE-DAY PENDING DELETE PERIOD BEFORE THE NAME IS CURRENTLY DELETED.
THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE WOULD RUN AN AUCTION, AN ASCENDING PROXY AUCTION FOR THE FIVE-DAY PENDING DELETE PERIOD, FINISHING ON THE FINAL DAY.
THE MODEL THAT SEEMS TO BE FAVORABLE IN THE CHANNEL IS ONE THAT ALLOWS THE BIDDING TO CONTINUE MUCH LIKE AN AUCTION NEAR WOULD CONTINUE WITH A REAL ESTATE AUCTION, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
THERE WOULD BE A PERIOD WHERE IF THERE'S ANY ACTIVITY, THE AUCTION WOULD CONTINUE.
IT WOULD ONLY COMPLETE ONCE THAT ACTIVITY HAS CEASED.
THE PERIOD OF TIME IS SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF FIVE MINUTES IS WHERE WE ARE AT THE MOMENT, GIVE OR TAKE.
THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE WILL BE MANAGED BY THE REGISTRY.
IT WILL BE INTERFACED INTO BY THE REGISTRARS THERE, EITHER AN EPP INTERFACE OR A WEB -- (INAUDIBLE) BRANDED WEB TOOL THAT THE REGISTRY WOULD PROVIDE.
THE BENEFITS OF BOTH OF THOSE THE BENEFIT OF THE EPP INTERFACE ALLOWS THE REGISTRARS TO INTEGRATE THIS SERVICE INTO THEIR ORDER FLOW.
SO FOR REGISTRANTS COMING TO THEIR SITE TO ORDER A DOMAIN NAME, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SEE AVAILABILITY OF NAMES THAT ARE RUNNING THROUGH THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE AT THE SAME TIME.
IT'LL EXPAND THE INVENTORY THAT'S AVAILABLE.
AND IMPORTANTLY, IT'LL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL REGISTRARS.
SO EACH REGISTRAR IS GOING TO HAVE THE EQUIVALENT OPPORTUNITY TO SELL THESE NAMES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.
FROM A CUSTOMER STANDPOINT, THAT MEANS THEY HAVE THE CHOICE OF REGISTRAR.
WHICHEVER REGISTRAR THEY CHOOSE TO GO TO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE NAMES IN THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE.
BY INTEGRATING IT INTO THE REGISTRY SYSTEMS, WE CAN ALSO LEVERAGE THE EXISTING FINANCIAL FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE WITH THE REGISTRARS.
SO FROM A REGISTRAR STANDPOINT, THE ACTIVITY GENERATED BY AN AUCTION WILL BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS A REGISTRATION TODAY.
THIS PASSES ON A CONSISTENCY ONTO THEIR CUSTOMERS, CONSISTENCY WITH THEIR REGISTRATION EXPERIENCES TODAY.
THE ONE THING THAT WE WILL BE EXTENDING IS A GRACE PERIOD.
GIVEN THE POTENTIAL UNIT VALUE OF SOME OF THESE SALES, THE GRACE PERIOD'S BEEN EXTENDED TO TEN DAYS.
NOW, AN ISSUE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE THIS WEEK IS SOMETHING WE DON'T WANT -- WE WANT TO TRY AND SET THIS PROCESS IN PLACE TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CAUSING ANY KIND OF ISSUES.
THE REGISTRATION WILL BE FULFILLED AT THE COMPLETION OF THE TEN-DAY ESCROW -- THE TEN-DAY GRACE PERIOD.
SO THE AUCTION WILL COMPLETE ON DAY FIVE OF THE PENDING DELETE.
THERE WILL BE A TEN-DAY GRACE PERIOD, AT THE END OF WHICH THE REGISTRATION WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY FULFILLED AT THE REGISTRY.
IF A CUSTOMER WISHES TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT NAME PRIOR TO THOSE TEN DAYS, THEY CAN DO SO.
THE REGISTRAR WILL SEND THAT REQUEST TO THE REGISTRY AND WE'LL EFFECTIVELY SHORTEN THE GRACE PERIOD AND FULFILL THE REGISTRATION AT THAT POINT.
THE GRACE PERIOD IS REALLY INTENDED TO ALLOW REGISTRARS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS TO FINALIZE A PAYMENT.
AND, AGAIN, THE TEN-DAY PERIOD SEEMED TO BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, FROM THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM THE REGISTRARS, TO SECURE THAT PAYMENT.
IT WILL ENABLE THE INDUSTRY, REALLY, TO TRY TO MANAGE THESE LARGER UNIT SALES IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER.
IF THERE IS ANY ISSUES WITH SECURING PAYMENT IN THE TEN-DAY PERIOD, THE NAME WILL RETURN TO AUCTION AND IS REAUCTIONED.
THE AUTOMATED REGISTRATION, THE FULFILLMENT HERE WILL BE A ONE-YEAR TERM.
THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE A LOT OF DEMAND FOR EXTENDING THAT PERIOD.
BUT COULD BE A POSSIBLE FUTURE ENHANCEMENT SO THAT THE AUCTION COULD ACTUALLY RUN FOR REGISTRATION OF A PERIOD ELECTED BY THE CUSTOMER.
SO A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS OF HOW THE AUCTION WILL WORK.
THE STARTING PRICE WILL BE 0.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF A CUSTOMER IS A SINGLE BIDDER ON A NAME, THEY WILL RECEIVE IT AT THE END OF THE AUCTION FOR ZERO DOLLARS.
THIS IS EXCLUSIVE OF THE REGISTRATION FEE.
THE INTENTION OF THE ZERO STARTING PROCESS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE NAMES OF VALUE THAT ARE DELETING ARE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE SERVICE AS OPPOSED TO BEING DELETED AND GRABBED THROUGH THE BATCH POOL.
SO ONE OF THE BENEFITS EXTENDED TO THE END USERS WITH THIS SERVICE, AS I MENTIONED, THEY CAN GO TO THE REGISTRAR OF CHOICE AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE INVENTORY OF NAMES THAT ARE IN THERE.
IF THEY ARE THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AT THE END OF THE AUCTION, THE REGISTRATION IS GUARANTEED.
THERE'S NO QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SERVICE PROVIDER IS ABLE TO GRAB THE NAME THROUGH THE BATCH POOL.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH REGISTRARS ON ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE SERVICE BEING FRAUD AND MANAGING THE PAYMENT.
SO VERISIGN'S GOING TO WORK TOWARDS ADDING SOME VALUE-ADDED SERVICES TO THIS.
REGISTRARS WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF ELECTING TO USE.
THEY'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO CONTINUE USING THEIR CURRENT SERVICES IF THEY SO WISH.
BUT WE WILL MAKE AVAILABLE FRAUD AND PAYMENT SERVICES FOR THOSE THAT NEED SOME ASSISTANCE WORKING WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS.
AT THIS STAGE, I'D INVITE ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS ON THIS PROPOSAL.

>>MARILYN CADE: DAVID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE.
I'M WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.
BUT I ACTUALLY NEED TO TAKE YOU BACK TO A POINT AT THE VERY BEGINNING WHICH I WASN'T VERY CLEAR ON.
AND MY QUESTION IS PRIMARILY AT THIS POINT FOR CLARIFICATION.
I WAS IN THE FLOW OF ACTIONS THAT YOU SHOWED VERY EARLY IN THE BEGINNING.
THERE'S -- IF WE COULD GO BACK.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GO BACK?

>>DAVID STEWART: LET ME SEE.
THIS OR THE ONE THAT --
>>MARILYN CADE: NO.
THIS ONE.
POINT OUT TO ME, AGAIN, PLEASE, WHEN THE AUCTION PERIOD IS OPENED.
>>DAVID STEWART: IT'S OPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PENDING DELETE PERIOD.
>>MARILYN CADE: BEGINNING.
>>DAVID STEWART: YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
IF I'M THE REGISTRANT WHOSE NAME IS IN PENDING DELETE, THAT IS FOR A FIVE-DAY PERIOD; IS THAT RIGHT?
>>DAVID STEWART: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO WE'RE OPENING AN AUCTION BEFORE THAT FIVE-DAY PERIOD COMPLETES?
I'M SORRY, BRUCE, I CAN'T --
>>DAVID STEWART: THE RESULT OF THE AUCTION IS DETERMINED JUST PRIOR TO THE END OF THE PENDING DELETE PERIOD.
SO THE ENTIRE AUCTION RUNS WITHIN THE CURRENT FIVE-DAY PENDING DELETE PERIOD.
>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH.
I'M NOT REALLY VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT IN TERMS OF MY UNDERSTANDING.
I THOUGHT DURING THE PENDING DELETE PERIOD, THE REGISTRANT AT ANY POINT WAS ABLE TO --
>>DAVID STEWART: NO.
>>MARILYN CADE: NO, OKAY.
>>DAVID STEWART: LET ME JUST TRY AND EXPLAIN.
THERE'S ONE POINT HERE THAT YOU'LL SEE, ACTUALLY.
AT THE END OF THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD -- LET ME TAKE THAT, BRUCE --
>>MARILYN CADE: GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN, SORRY TO REPORT THIS TO YOU, BUT THE ACOUSTICS ARE HORRIBLE.
JUST BE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIKE, BECAUSE I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU.
>>DAVID STEWART: SURE.
THE ABILITY OF THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT TO DICTATE WHERE THE DOMAIN GOES REALLY ENDS AT THE END OF THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD.
THERE'S NO -- THERE'S CURRENTLY NO ABILITY TO ALTER THE PATH OF THE DOMAIN NAME ONCE IT EXITS THE 30-DAY REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M FINE.
I WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY FIGURING OUT AT WHICH POINT YOU WERE STARTING.
THAT WAS WHY MY QUESTION WAS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
>>DAVID STEWART: I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE UNDERLYING VALUES OF THIS PROPOSAL, IS THAT IT DOES -- IT FUNCTIONS ONCE THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT'S RIGHTS HAVE EXPIRED.
>>ROSS RADER: DAVE, I HAD A QUESTION AS WELL.
ROSS RADER.
LOOKING THROUGH THIS, I DON'T SEE -- ACTUALLY, RATHER THAN MAKING A STATEMENT, I'LL ASK A QUESTION.
WHAT, IF ANY, POLICY IMPLICATIONS OR CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS IS VERISIGN GOING TO REQUIRE OR IS THIS PROPOSAL GOING TO REQUIRE TO ENACT?
>>DAVID STEWART: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REGISTRARS AND THE REGISTRY, THERE WILL BE PRIMARILY TWO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS INVOLVED HERE.
ONE WILL BE FOR A REGISTRAR WISHING TO OFFER THIS SERVICE TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, OFFER THE ABILITY TO BID ON NAMES GOING THROUGH THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE.
AND THAT'LL BE A TYPICAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP AND COVER THE BUSINESS PROCESSES AND THE RULES OF SUBMITTING BIDS.
THE SECOND ONE WILL BE FOR ALL REGISTRARS WHO WOULD RECEIVE FUNDS AS BEING THE PREVIOUS REGISTRAR OF RECORD.
AND THAT'LL BE PRETTY THIN AND WILL JUST GOVERN THE TRANSACTION THAT'LL OCCUR.

>>ROSS RADER: SO YOU'RE RELATIVELY SATISFIED THAT THIS CAN BE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE EXISTING POLICY AND CONTRACTS?
>>DAVID STEWART: I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.
YEAH.
WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND TAKE THIS PROCESS OR THIS PROPOSAL TO ICANN IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE AND TRY AND GAIN APPROVAL.
LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE SPENT THE LAST 12 MONTHS COLLECTING FEEDBACK ON THIS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
AT THIS STAGE, WE'RE JUST MAKING SOME SMALL FINE CHANGES ON HOW IT'LL WORK.
BUT THE GENERAL FEEDBACK WE'VE HAD HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING THIS PROPOSAL TO ICANN IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP, GO AHEAD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SORRY, PERHAPS I MISSED THE RATHER IMPORTANT POINT.
WHO GETS THE -- WHO BENEFITS FROM -- PROFITS IN THIS SYSTEM?
ARE THE FIXED FEE, IS THERE A SHARE BETWEEN REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR?
WHAT'S THE THINKING BEHIND THAT?
>>DAVID STEWART: SO THE PROCEEDS FROM THE AUCTION WILL BE -- THERE'S A FEE, THERE'S A CENTRAL LISTING FEE, WHICH WILL BE A 10% FEE.
IT'LL BE 10% OF THE AUCTION PROCEEDS, AND THAT WILL GO TO THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE FEE.
THE BALANCE OF THE PROCEEDS, 90% OF THE AUCTION PROCEEDS, WILL GO TO THE PREVIOUS REGISTRAR OF RECORD.
IT'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR ON RECORD AND THEIR CUSTOMERS TO DETERMINE HOW THEY SHARE THAT PROCEED.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: HANG ON.
SO THE REGISTRY IS ACTING AS AN AGENT, AN AUCTION AGENT, AND TAKING 10%?
>>DAVID STEWART: EFFECTIVELY. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: AND THE 90%, THEN, IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT?
>>DAVID STEWART: WELL, FROM A --
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OR REGISTRAR?
>>DAVID STEWART: WE HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REGISTRANT.
WE'RE PASSING THEM BACK TO THE REGISTRAR.
AND IT'S UP TO THE REGISTRAR TO WORK WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS ON WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT THEY PASS THROUGH.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BUT IN THAT CASE, THE CUSTOMER IS THE NEW BIDDER.
>>DAVID STEWART: NO.
THE BIDDER IS -- THE BIDDER'S REALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
SO YOU'VE GOT THE BUYING BIDDER --
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: FIRST QUESTION.
DOES THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT HAVE ANY RIGHTS OR SAY IN THIS PROCESS OR ARE WE BASICALLY RULING THEM OUT AND STARTING FROM SCRATCH?
>>DAVID STEWART: THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT HAS THE ABILITY TO WORK -- WELL, THEIR RIGHTS ARE THROUGH THEIR REGISTRAR.
SO THEY NEED TO WORK WITH THEIR REGISTRAR ON THE NAMES.
>>MARILYN CADE: DAVE, BUT I THINK WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER WAS THAT THEY DID HAVE -- THEY DID HAVE RIGHTS DURING THE -- THE NAME EXPIRED.
THERE'S A ONE TO 45-DAY AUTO RENEWAL GRACE PERIOD DURING WHICH TIME THEIR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED.
THERE'S THEN A REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD WHICH THIS COUNCIL, EARLIER STAGES OF IT, WAS VERY INVOLVED IN ADVISING ON.
AND THAT'S A 30-DAY PERIOD.
SO THE REGISTRANT'S RIGHTS ARE -- WHAT WE'RE NOW CALLING THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT, THEIR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 31 DAYS.
AND SO I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE AUTO RENEWAL GRACE PERIOD.
WHY IS THE TIME FRAME FROM ONE TO 45, ONE BEING THE REGISTRANT ACTED WITHIN THAT TIME, AND 45 BEING THE FURTHEST EXTENSION OF IT.
>>DAVID STEWART: I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY -- YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY THAT IT'S THE REGISTRAR THAT ACTS.
THE NAME IS AUTO RENEWED, AND IT'S THE REGISTRAR THAT ACTUALLY MAKES THE DELETION TO THE REGISTRY.
AND THEY HAVE 45 DAYS TO DO THAT.
AND THEY COULD DO IT ON DAY ONE, THAT'S CORRECT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK I REMEMBER THAT WHEN WE WERE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN IT.
SO WE HAVE A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 31 DAYS DURING WHICH TIME THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT'S RIGHTS ARE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, PROTECTED.
>>DAVID STEWART: THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE WILL ONLY BE EFFECTIVE ONCE THOSE RIGHTS HAVE EXHAUSTED.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY.
THAT DEALS WITH THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT.
OKAY.
SO IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS, THEN, THE -- 90% OF THE MONEY IS THEN BEING HANDLED BY THE REGISTRAR.
THE NEW BIDDER IS NOT THE REGISTRAR BIDDING, BUT THE POTENTIAL NEW REGISTRANT, SO THEY KNOW THE MONEY THEY'RE BIDDING FOR.
AND THEREFORE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A DEAL WITH THEIR REGISTRAR IN TERMS OF THE CUT THAT THE REGISTRAR TAKES. AND THAT MAY BE A FUNCTION OF THE MARKET, IT MAY CHANGE AND GO TO (INAUDIBLE). IS THAT THE CONCEPT?
>>DAVID STEWART: LET ME TRY AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION --
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE GOOD, PERHAPS.
>>DAVID STEWART: SO THERE'S NO FUNDS BUILT INTO THIS FLOW THAT AUTOMATICALLY GO TO THE NEXT REGISTRAR OF RECORD.
OKAY?
THE POSITIONING TO THE NEW REGISTRAR OF RECORD WHO IS SUBMITTING BIDS ON BEHALF OF THEIR CUSTOMER IS VERY THAT IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY DICTATE THEIR OWN MARGINS ON REGISTRATIONS TODAY, THEY CAN SET A SERVICE FEE FOR THE CENTRAL LISTING SERVICE.
SO THE MARGIN TO THE REGISTRAR SUBMITTING THE BIDS IS DETERMINED BY THAT REGISTRAR IN ORDER TO GET THE BUSINESS FROM THEIR CUSTOMER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP, CAN I JUST CLARIFY?
BECAUSE YOU ARE MIXING TERMS A LITTLE BIT HERE.
THERE ARE FIVE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS.
LET ME JUST GO THROUGH WHAT THE FIVE PARTIES ARE.
THERE'S THE PREVIOUS REGISTRANT AND PREVIOUS REGISTRAR.
SO THAT'S TWO.
THERE'S THE CENTRAL REGISTRY, THREE.
THERE IS THE NEW REGISTRAR AND THE NEW REGISTRANT.
SO THERE ARE FIVE PARTIES.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT DAVE HAS DESCRIBED HERE, THE REGISTRY ONLY DEALS WITH TWO OF THOSE FIVE -- TWO OF THOSE FIVE, WHICH IS THE PREVIOUS REGISTRAR AND THE NEW REGISTRAR.
THOSE REGISTRARS HAVE THEIR OWN BUSINESS MODELS THAT RELATE TO THE REGISTRANT.
SO THIS IS A WHOLESALE PRICING.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE REGISTRY WAS TO HAVE A TRANSACTION WHICH WAS WORTH $100, THE REGISTRY WOULD TAKE $10 AS THEIR FEE FOR THAT TRANSACTION. THE BUYING REGISTRAR, IF YOU LIKE, HAS PAID $100. THAT BUYING REGISTRAR MIGHT CHARGE A FEE ON TOP OF THAT JUST AS THEY DO NOW FOR REGISTRATION. SO THEY MIGHT SAY THE NEW REGISTRAR CHARGES THE NEW REGISTRANT $110 OR ANY NUMBER. THAT'S THE FEE THE NEW REGISTRAR IS CHARGING THE NEW REGISTRANT. SO THAT'S ON THE BUYING SIDE.
ON THE SELLING SIDE, THE PREVIOUS REGISTRAR
90% OF THAT $100. SO IT GETS $90. THAT PREVIOUS REGISTRAR WILL THEN PROVIDE -- MAY PROVIDE SOME PORTION OF THAT FEE BACK TO THEIR CUSTOMER WHICH WILL BE BASED ON THE AGREEMENT THAT REGISTRAR HAS WITH THAT CUSTOMER. AND THAT WILL AGAIN VARY IN THE MARKET.
SO YOU'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MARKET BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR AND THE REGISTRANT VARIES BETWEEN REGISTRARS.
WHEREAS, THIS MODEL IS BETWEEN THE TWO REGISTRARS.
DOES THAT CLARIFY JUST THE PARTIES?
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT HELPS.
WHAT THAT -- ARE WE SAYING HERE THAT, IN FACT, WE'RE JUST -- THE NEW REGISTRAR CAN BE ACTING AS A -- IS NOT ACTUALLY ACTING HERE AS AN AGENT FOR THEIR CUSTOMER, NECESSARILY. IT COULD BE ACTING ON THEIR OWN RIGHT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NOT AS A REGISTRAR, THEY'RE NOT.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I POINTED OUT AT THE PRESENTATION YESTERDAY AFTERNOON WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING IS YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROLES VERSUS COMPANIES. SO WHEN THE COMPANY IS ACTING IN ITS ROLE AS A REGISTRAR, ALL IT IS DOING IS PUTTING AN ENTRY INTO A DATABASE, AND IT'S DOING THAT ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE, WHICH IS THE REGISTRANT.
IF THAT REGISTRAR, IF IT WAS A COMPANY THAT WAS CHOOSING TO REGISTRY IT IN THEIR OWN NAME, THEN THEY CAN BE BOTH THE REGISTRAR AND THE REGISTRANT.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BUT IN THE NORMAL SENSE, JUST NORMALLY THE WAY THE MARKET OPERATES IS THE CUSTOMERS COME TO THE REGISTRARS AND SAY "I WANT TO BUY THIS NAME." THE REGISTRAR WOULD WORK UP HOW MUCH YOU PREPARED TO PAY, WHAT'S YOUR PRICE? AND SO THE REGISTRAR ACTS LIKE AN AUCTION.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE MODEL IS WORKING.
SO THE ESSENCE OF THE MODEL IS IT'S BASICALLY BETWEEN MARKET SAVVY REGISTRARS AND THE REGISTRY IN HOW WE MANAGE AN AUCTION, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY HEARD NOTHING TODAY IN TERMS WHAT HAVE, SUBSEQUENTLY, THAT REGISTRAR OR AN ALTERNATIVE PART OF THAT SAME STRUCTURE DOES WITH THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CUSTOMER. WE'RE JUST HEARING ABOUT A MECHANISM ABOUT THAT FIRST PART.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S RIGHT. BUT ESSENTIALLY, TO USE AN ANALOGY THAT'S IN THE REST OF THE MARKET, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAY A STOCK MARKET WORKS, YOU HAVE STOCKBROKERS, AND STOCKBROKERS CAN SELL STOCK AND BUY STOCK ON YOUR BEHALF.
AND THE KEY THING IN THE STOCK MARKET IS IT'S VERY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT. SO YOU ACTUALLY -- I'M NOT A STOCKBROKER BUT I CAN PICK UP A NEWSPAPER AND SEE WHAT WAS TRADED DURING THAT DAY. I KNOW IF I WANT TO BUY STOCKS ON THAT MARKET, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY MORE THAN WHAT THAT PRICE IS BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY A BROKER TO DO SOMETHING. AND I KNOW THAT IF I SELL STOCKS, I'M NOT GOING TO GET ALL THAT MONEY BECAUSE THE BROKER THAT I'VE USED TO SELL THE STOCK IS GOING TO TAKE SOME MONEY OUT.
IN BOTH CASES, THOUGH, I CAN CHOOSE WHICH BROKER I USE. AND THOSE BROKERS ARE GOING TO ANNOUNCE IN ADVANCE WHAT THEIR FEE STRUCTURES ARE. AND I'M GOING TO CHOOSE WHICH BROKER TO USE, ESSENTIALLY.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE ANALOGY HERE, ROUGHLY.
>>MARILYN CADE:BRUCE, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH ERROR EARLIER IN THE SCRIBING THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST CLARIFY IT AT THIS POINT.
I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT THE $90 WOULD GO TO THE REGISTRAR. IN THE TRANSCRIPTION I BELIEVE IT SAYS IT GOES TO THE REGISTRANT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, BECAUSE THE REGISTRY DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE REGISTRANT. JUST AS A STOCK EXCHANGE DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE END BUYER. IT DEALS WITH THE BROKER. AND THEN THAT'S THEN PASSED ON.
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THAT BACK INTO THE RECORD. THANKS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY, CARLOS.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: YES. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A GENERAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE REGISTRANT AND THE REGISTRAR. ALTHOUGH WE, WHEN WE REGISTER OUR DOMAIN, WE DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE IT. BUT THERE IS THIS CONTRACT.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.
IN THIS CASE, DOES THE CONTRACT -- WHAT ARE THE PROVISIONS IN THIS CONTRACT FOR CHANGES IN PROCESSES LIKE THE DOMAIN NAME DELETING PROCESS? THE EXISTING CONTRACTS, ARE THEY -- DO THEY HAVE PROVISIONS FOR THESE CHANGES? HOW FAR DO THEY GO, ET CETERA?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHICH CONTRACT ARE YOU REFERRING TO, JUST TO CLARIFY?
>>CARLOS AFONSO: THIS IS A HYPOTHESIS. I ASSUME THAT WHEN YOU ESTABLISH AN OBLIGATION BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR REGISTER, THERE IS SORT OF CONTRACTS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: IT'S A GENERIC CONTRACT BECAUSE WE REGISTRANTS NEVER RECEIVE IT, A COPY OF IT BY DEFAULT.
SO I WONDER IF THIS BINDING AGREEMENT, FORMAL BINDING AGREEMENT, HAS PROVISIONS FOR CHANGES LIKE IN DOMAIN NAME DELETING PROCESS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THAT -- WHICH IS USUALLY DONE IN MANY CASES VIA THE WEB. AND TYPICALLY WHEN YOU REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME, YOU'RE ASKED TO CLICK "I AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS" IS COMMON LANGUAGE. YOU CLICK A BOX. IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THAT AGREEMENT, IT'S THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PURCHASE OF THAT DOMAIN NAME.
THE ICANN CONTRACT BETWEEN ICANN AND THE REGISTRAR SPECIFIES MINIMUM CONDITIONS. SO THESE ARE CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE IN THAT AGREEMENT.
THEN REGISTRARS ADD THEIR OWN CONDITIONS ON TOP OF THAT, AND THOSE CONDITIONS VARY BETWEEN REGISTRARS.
IT'S QUITE COMMON, IF YOU'RE ASKING A LEGAL QUESTION HOW DO YOU MAKE A CHANGE TO THAT AGREEMENT, SOME OF THAT VARIES BY LEGAL JURISDICTION FOR WHERE THE REGISTRAR OPERATES.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN AUSTRALIA, TYPICALLY, IF YOU CHANGE AN AGREEMENT LIKE THAT, YOU NEED TO INFORM THE CUSTOMER OR THEY NEED TO AGREE TO THE CHANGE, THAT SORT OF THING. IN SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS, AN AGREEMENT MIGHT SAY SOMETHING LIKE, "THIS AGREEMENT CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME BY PUBLISHING IT ON THE WEB SITE." AND WE'VE SEEN CASES WITH SOME REGISTRARS BASICALLY CHANGE THEIR CONDITIONS OFTEN. AND THE NOTIFICATION OF THAT CHANGE IS BASICALLY IT'S PUBLISHED ON THE WEB SITE OF THAT REGISTRAR.
SO I GUESS ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THE MARKET AND FROM AN ICANN POINT OF VIEW IS, I THINK, REGISTRANTS GENERALLY DON'T REALIZE THAT DIFFERENT REGISTRARS HAVE VERY DIFFERENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BECAUSE PEOPLE, WHEN I HAD THIS ANALOGY WITH -- I WAS TALKING WITH VINT CERF THE OTHER DAY, WHEN PEOPLE BUY A DOMAIN NAME, THEY THINK THEY'RE BUYING A CARTON OF MILK FROM THE SAME DAIRY. HOW CAN IT BE THAT DIFFERENT? IT'S JUST A CARTON OF MILK. IT CAME FROM THE SAME DAIRY. BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY NOT DOING THAT. YOU'RE ACTUALLY PAYING FOR A SERVICE FROM THAT REGISTRAR. AND THAT SERVICE VARIES WIDELY BETWEEN THE REGISTRARS.
SO I HOPE THAT JUST ANSWERS THE QUESTION. THERE'S NO SINGLE ANSWER. IT'S PURELY TO DO WITH WHAT THAT ACTUAL AGREEMENT SAYS.
>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE -- I'M NOT SURE, DAVE, THIS IS DIRECTED TO YOU BUT LET ME ASK THE QUESTION AND YOU CAN DECIDE IF IT'S YOU OR MAYBE BRUCE WHO WANTS TO ANSWER THIS.
AND, BRUCE, I THINK YOUR ANALOGY IS BOTH FACTUAL AND HELPFUL IN THAT IN MY INTERACTIONS WITH REGISTRANTS, BOTH WHEN I WAS AT A MAJOR CORPORATION AND REPRESENTING COMPANIES OF ALL SIZES, IN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, I FIND GREAT CONFUSION ON THEIR PART ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY THEY ARE BUYING.
IT SEEMS THEY SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT IS A RIGHT TO USE A NAME, AND THAT COMES WITH SOME FUNCTIONAL SERVICES, BUT THEY DON'T REALLY SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THEY'RE PURCHASING.
SO THAT LEADS ME TO MY QUESTION, AND I THINK THIS PROBABLY IS A QUESTION FOR BRUCE. ARE WE FORECASTING HERE THAT IF WE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF AN AUCTION MODEL, WE WOULD SEE GREATLY DIFFERENTIATED OR POTENTIALLY DIFFERENTIATED AUCTION MODELS REGISTRY BY REGISTRY BY REGISTRY BY REGISTRY BY REGISTRY?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS -- AND I'LL INVITE SOME OTHER SPEAKERS HERE AS WELL WHO WILL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER AUCTION MODELS THAT ARE OCCURRING IN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THAT DOMAIN CYCLE SO I THINK IT'S WORTH ANSWERING THAT QUESTION BEFORE YOU SEE SOME OF THAT, BUT LET ME ANSWER AT A MORE GENERIC LEVEL.
IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY AT AN ICANN LEVEL, IF WE LOOK AT THE DOT NET DRAFT AGREEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DOT NET DRAFT AGREEMENT HAS, IN ITS DRAFT, A PROCESS FOR APPROVING CHANGES IN REGISTRY SERVICES, AND THAT'S GOING INTO THAT AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT'S A NEW AGREEMENT.
THAT, IN ITSELF, IS THEN COMING TO THE -- THAT WILL BE INPUT TO A COUNCIL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IF THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TAKES THAT AS INPUT, MAYBE CHANGES IT SLIGHTLY AND THAT BECOMES THE POLICY FOR REGISTRY SERVICES, THEN THAT WILL APPLY ACROSS THE INDUSTRY. IT'S ACTUALLY MANDATORY. IT'S A CONSENSUS POLICY.
SO LIKEWISE IN THIS SCENARIO, REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES OFFER DIFFERENT SERVICES, THE MARKET WILL EVOLVE TO OFFER DIFFERENT SERVICES. THE GNSO MIGHT LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND SAY OKAY, WE'RE STARTING TO GET SO MUCH DIVERSITY HERE THAT WE NEED A COMMON SET OF PRINCIPLES AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT, FROM A POLICY LEVEL YOU SAY THAT AUCTION MODELS ARE OKAY BUT THEY NEED TO MEET THESE PRINCIPLES.
AND SO THERE'S STILL -- SO DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?
>>MARILYN CADE: IT'S HELPFUL, BUT I JUST GO BACK TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT DOT NET.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE, AND IT'S NOT TO DEAL WITH IT AT THIS TIME, BUT WE'RE SEEING POLICY MADE BY CONTRACT WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE COMMUNITY FOR CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THERE'S A NEED FOR A PDP. SO I DIDN'T REALLY FOLLOW YOUR SUGGESTION THAT BECAUSE WRITTEN INTO THE DOT NET CONTRACT THERE IS A PROCESS IN THE CONTRACT BY WHICH NEW REGISTRY SERVICES WILL BE INTRODUCED, THAT THAT WOULD COME TO THE COUNCIL. IN FACT, I LOOKED AT THAT AND THOUGHT, IN FACT, I THINK THAT'S BYPASSING THE COUNCIL. MAYBE THAT'S RIGHT, MAYBE THAT'S WRONG, BUT I THINK IT'S BYPASSING THE COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. YOU'RE IMPLYING THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD APPROVE PROCESSES. I'M SAYING THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD DEFINE A PROCESS FOR APPROVING NEW SERVICES. AND THAT WOULD BE ACROSS THE INDUSTRY. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IN THIS CONTEXT IS THAT ANY -- ANYONE THAT'S INTRODUCING A SERVICE, IT MUST BE COMPLIANT WITH WHATEVER EXISTING POLICIES THERE ARE. AND WHEN A CHANGE IS MADE IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT MIGHT LEAD TO A NEW POLICY, RIGHT, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE A CHANGE THAT VIOLATES ANY OF THE EXISTING POLICIES.
SO DOES THAT HELP?
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'M SORT OF CONSCIOUS THAT A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE COMING FROM THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE ONE OF THE BENEFITS IS WE WANT TO GET COUNCIL TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET. BUT ALSO, I'D LIKE ANYONE FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO HAS ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY WANT TO ASK AT THIS POINT.
OKAY. I'D LIKE TO INVITE RAY KING FROM SNAPNAMES TO JUST SORT OF PRESENT, AND I THANK DAVE STEWART FROM VERISIGN FOR PRESENTING.
TO JUST SORT OF GIVE A BIT OF CONTEXT, DAVE WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE RIGHTS OF THE REGISTRANT HAVE COMPLETED AND THE NAME HAS GONE INTO PENDING DELETE. ALSO IN THE MARKET THERE IS A LOT OF ACTIVITY OCCURRING, ESPECIALLY BETWEEN WHEN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGISTRY, REGISTRAR AND THE CUSTOMER EXPIRES AND THERE'S TYPICALLY A GRACE PERIOD BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DELETES A NAME. BECAUSE THE REGISTRAR WILL DELETE A NAME IF IT'S NOT BEEN PAID FOR RENEWAL. AND THIS IS WHAT WAS REFERRED TO IN DAVE'S SLIDE IS THE AUTO RENEWAL GRACE PERIOD AND THAT VARIES GREATLY BETWEEN REGISTRARS AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT DIFFERENT REGISTRARS ARE USING BUT THERE ARE EMERGING SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE REGISTRANTS WITH CHOOSE TO EITHER RENEW THEIR NAME OR THEY MAY CHOOSE TO EFFECTIVELY SELL THE RIGHTS TO THAT NAME. AND ALMOST WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS SELLING THE RIGHT TO RENEW THE NAME AT THAT POINT.
>>RAYMOND KING: AM I GOOD TO GO?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>RAYMOND KING: OKAY. HI, MY NAME IS RAY KING. I'M WITH SNAPNAMES, AND TODAY, AS MANY OF YOU MAY KNOW, WE'VE BEEN IN THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES FOR QUITE A WHILE. AND I'D LIKE TO SHARE SOME OF OUR LEARNINGS AND EXPERIENCE. AND ALSO OVERVIEW THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT AUCTION MODELS THAT ARE EITHER ALREADY EXISTING IN THE MARKET OR PROPOSED.
AND IN GENERAL, JUST CONTRIBUTE TO THE INDUSTRY DISCUSSION TO HELP US TRY AND REACH A MORE STABLE PLATFORM. I THINK AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A BIT OF CHANGE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND I THINK STABILITY WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
CURRENTLY, THE DOMAIN NAME LIFE CYCLE LOOKS AS FOLLOWS. AND I THINK MOST OF YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE A SENSE OF THIS, BUT DURING THE TIME A REGISTRANT HAS A DOMAIN NAME, PRIOR TO EXPIRATION IT IS ACTIVE. AFTERWARDS IT GOES INTO A REGISTRAR GRACE PERIOD, WHICH IS ONE TO 45 DAYS, FOLLOWED BY REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD, AND THEN A PENDING DELETE PERIOD AFTER WHICH THE NAME IS PURGED AND MADE AVAILABLE AGAIN TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
THE FOUR AREAS WHERE A AUCTION FOR A DOMAIN NAME CAN TAKE PLACE ARE, FIRST, IN THE GENERAL MARKETPLACE, AT ANY POINT IN TIME SOMEONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SELL THEIR DOMAIN NAME TO ANOTHER REGISTRANT.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT IN DEPTH. I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE THREE OTHER AREAS, WHICH ARE ALL THE WAY ON THE RIGHT-HAND OF THE SCREEN. DROP CATCHING WHERE A DOMAIN NAME IS PICKED UP AFTER IT'S PURGED FROM THE REGISTRY. REGISTRY AUCTION, WHICH IS THE PROPOSAL THAT WE JUST HEARD DAVE SPEAK ON. AND TRANSFER FULFILLMENT, WHERE A DOMAIN NAME IS TRANSFERRED AFTER EXPIRATION AND BEFORE IT GOES TO THE REGISTRY.
BUT FIRST, LET ME GO OVER SOME GENERAL CONCEPTS WHICH WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT IN CREATING ANY SUCCESSFUL SECONDARY MARKET AUCTION.
FIRST, AND I THINK THIS IS RATHER OBVIOUS, HAVING AS MANY BIDDERS AND NAMES IN ONE PLACE, NOT ONLY MAXIMIZES THE REVENUE POTENTIAL FOR THE PARTICIPANTS BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS POSITIVE FOR END USERS BECAUSE IT CREATES LESS CONFUSION. IT'S ONE PLACE TO GO TO FIND THE DOMAIN NAME.
SECONDLY, CONSISTENCY OF AUCTION RULES INCREASES PARTICIPATION BECAUSE USERS, THEY KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT, AND THEY AREN'T THROWN FOR A LOOP, GOING FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER.
THIRDLY, A REPUTATION SYSTEM IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS USERS BECOME FAMILIAR WITH OTHER USERS BID ALIASES, IT GIVES THEM A SENSE OF WHO THEY'RE BIDDING AGAINST AND IT MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS A REAL-WORLD ENVIRONMENT. YOU KNOW, IMAGINE GOING TO CHRISTIE'S OR SOTHEBY'S AND BIDDING WITHIN A ROOM FULL OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE KNOWN IN THE INDUSTRY.
THE NEXT IS TRUST AND I THINK THIS MIGHT BE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL THE ASPECTS. USERS NEED TO FEEL THEY'RE WORKING WITH A TRUSTED ENTITY, ONE THAT HANDLES THE AUCTION PROCESS IN AN ABOVE-BOARD FASHION. AND THE BEST WAY TO DEVELOP TRUST WITH THE USERS IS BY HAVING TRANSPARENCY AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO REALLY SEE WHAT'S GOING ON AND KNOWING THAT NOTHING IS HAPPENING BEHIND THE SCENES.
AND LASTLY, OF COURSE, TO BE AVOIDED, ALL FORMS OF GAMING. AND THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS SYSTEMS CAN BE GAMED. I WON'T GO INTO ALL OF THEM, BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, PEOPLE IN THIS INDUSTRY, WE'VE ALL SEEN VERY CREATIVE BEHAVIOR, AND GAMING IN GENERAL IS BAD BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING TO EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM VERSUS THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING TO USE IT IN A LEGITIMATE FASHION.
SO LET'S TALK FIRST ABOUT DROP CATCHING.
IN THIS MODEL, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, REGISTRARS LOOKING TO GAIN DOMAIN NAMES FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS REALIZED THAT THEY COULD USE THEIR CONNECTIONS TO THE CENTRAL REGISTRY TO TRY TO GAIN THOSE NAMES AT THE EXACT MOMENT THAT THE GAIN IS DELETED OR PURGED FROM THE CENTRAL REGISTRY.
SO WHEN THE NAME COMES UP, EVERYONE ISSUES A WHOLE BUNCH OF ADD COMMANDS, TRIES TO GRAB THE NAME.
IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THIS ACCESS TO THE CENTRAL REGISTRY IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY AND THIS CREATED A SITUATION WHERE THERE BECAME MORE AND MORE REGISTRARS AND PEOPLE WHO DISCOVERED THIS BEGAN PUTTING IN MULTIPLE ACCREDITATION APPLICATIONS, AND THE RESULT WAS A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF ACCREDITATION APPLICATIONS, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS A PROBLEM FOR THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE, BECAUSE THERE'S A RISK SOME OF THESE ACCREDITATIONS MAY BE DROPPED ONCE THE THREAD VALUE DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE FEES REQUIRED TO UPKEEP THE ACCREDITATIONS. THAT'S A BAD THING BECAUSE IF THESE ACCREDITATIONS DROP, THEN REGISTRATIONS MAY ALSO FALL ON THE FLOOR AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A GOOD THING.
IN ADDITION, THE REGISTRY IS UNNECESSARILY EXERCISED BY HAVING TO MAINTAIN SYSTEMS ABLE TO WITHSTAND THE BANGING OF THEIR -- OF THE REGISTRY BY THE THREADS. AND ALSO USERS WANTING TO GAIN DOMAIN NAMES MUST EXPRESS INTEREST AT MULTIPLE REGISTRARS WHICH IS JUST MORE CONFUSING.
AND ALSO, ONE OTHER THING WHICH I DIDN'T PUT ON THE SLIDE BUT I JUST REMEMBERED, IS THAT USERS -- REGISTRATIONS THAT LAND AT THESE REGISTRARS ARE NOT HANDLED AS WELL, PERHAPS, AS REGISTRANTS WHO ARE WITH REGISTRARS THAT HAVE FULL BLOWN-OUT USER INTERFACES, ET CETERA. BECAUSE REMEMBER, THESE ACCREDITATIONS ARE BEING PUT IN PLACE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THREAD ACCESS, AND I THINK A LOT LESS ATTENTION IS PAID TOWARD SUPPORT AND USER INTERFACE AS WOULD BE WITH WHAT I WOULD CALL REAL REGISTRARS.
NEXT I WANT TO DISCUSS TRANSFER FULFILLMENT, WHICH OCCURS POST EXPIRATION AND BEFORE THE NAME IS EXPLICITLY DELETED.
THIS SCENARIO IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN A TRANSFER FULFILLMENT IS THAT THE REGISTRAR OF RECORD FULFILLS ANOTHER NEW REGISTRANT'S DESIRE TO HAVE A NAME BY TRANSFERRING THAT NAME TO THEM. SO THE NAME REMAINS AT THE EXISTING REGISTRAR, BUT THE REGISTRAR OF RECORD WOULD HOLD AN AUCTION TOWARDS THE END OF THE REGISTRAR GRACE PERIOD AND TRANSFER THE NAME DIRECTLY TO THE NEW REGISTRANT.
THIS SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF MASSIVE MULTIPLE ACCREDITATIONS PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT SHIFTS REVENUE FROM THE SHELL ACCREDITATION OWNERS TO THE REGISTRARS WITH REAL CLIENTS. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE REGISTRAR OF RECORD TO MAINTAIN THE REGISTRATION SO YOU DON'T END UP WITH -- IN ESSENCE, THE GAINING REGISTRAR AND THE REGISTRAR OF RECORD ARE THE SAME, WHICH SIMPLIFIES THINGS, AND IT'S A PROVEN SUCCESSFUL MODEL.
NEXT IS REGISTRY AUCTIONS WHICH DAVE JUST PRESENTED FOR YOU, AND IN A REGISTRY AUCTION THERE'S THE ADDED ADVANTAGE THAT THE GAINING REGISTRAR IS OR CAN BE DIFFERENT THAN THE REGISTRAR OF RECORD. THAT'S AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE USERS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH A GIVEN REGISTRAR WANT TO BE ABLE TO PICK UP WHATEVER NAME THEY'RE LOOKING FOR AND NOT HAVE TO WORK WITH MULTIPLE REGISTRARS WHEN MANAGING THEIR DOMAIN NAMES.
IN ADDITION, THE REGISTRY IS A LOGICAL PLACE FOR A CENTRALIZED LISTING SERVICE BECAUSE IT BRINGS EVERYBODY TOGETHER. IT PROVIDES A CONSISTENT USER FACE FOR ALL REGISTRARS, SETTLES FUNDS BETWEEN PARTIES, AND IS A TRUSTED CENTRAL ENTITY, SO IT PROVIDES THAT UNIFORMITY, WHICH I THINK IS A POSITIVE FOR THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE.
SO IN SUMMARY, TRANSFER FULFILLMENT AND THE CENTRALIZED REGISTRY SERVICE BOTH OFFER AN IMPROVED USER EXPERIENCE. THESE MODELS CAN COEXIST, BECAUSE REMEMBER ONE HAPPENS BEFORE AND ONE HAPPENS AFTER THE NAME GOES THROUGH THE REGISTRY. AND MOVING TOWARDS MODELS THAT DON'T ENCOURAGE MASSIVE SHELL ACCREDITATIONS IS SOMETHING THAT HELPS THE STABILITY OF THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT BOTH TRANSFER FULFILLMENT AND THE NEW REGISTRY OFFERING BRING MORE ORDER TO THE SECONDARY MARKET AND, HENCE, SERVE CUSTOMERS BETTER.
THAT'S IT FOR ME. QUESTIONS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, RAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR RAY?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: (INAUDIBLE) SLIDES AVAILABLE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GLEN IS GETTING A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION AND WE'LL PROVIDE THEM AS PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>>RAYMOND KING: I THINK MARILYN HAS GOT ONE.
>>MARILYN CADE: RAY, THANKS FOR DOING THE PRESENTATION FOR US. I THINK WALKING THROUGH IT'S VERY HELPFUL.
I THINK I PROBABLY AM GOING TO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE AT THE END OF ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS ON THE AUCTION MODEL, BUT ONE QUESTION I'M SORT OF STRUGGLING WITH GOES BACK AGAIN TO THE BEGINNING OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
THE -- YOU'RE PROPOSING -- DO I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE PROPOSING WHAT WE WOULD THINK OF AS A CENTRALIZED AUCTION ENTITY?
>>RAYMOND KING: OH, NO. THE CENTRALIZED AUCTION FUNCTION AS DESCRIBED BY DAVE STEWART I THINK IS A POSITIVE. AND SO WHEN I SAY CENTRAL SYSTEM, I'M PRETTY MUCH REFERRING TO WHAT HE JUST PROPOSED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I THINK WE'LL GO WITH ONE OTHER PRESENTER ON THIS TOPIC. AND I THINK WE ARE RECOGNIZING THAT THIS AREA IS SOMETHING THAT REGISTRARS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, SO IT'S FAMILIAR TERRITORY FOR US. AND WE'RE JUST SORT OF LOOKING AT HOW TO TRY AND IMPROVE THE SYSTEMS; WHEREAS, FOR MOST USERS THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'RE REALLY HEARING ABOUT IT.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TRYING TO -- I THINK WE WILL IT WILL TAKE A FEW RUN-THROUGH THESE SORTS OF PRESENTATIONS TO UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES. PERHAPS IN LUXEMBOURG WE CAN ARRANGE A SOME SESSIONS FOR EACH CONSTITUENCY WITH SOME OF THESE FIGURES, FOR EXAMPLE, SAYING YOU HAVE AN OPTION OF EXPANDING ON IT FURTHER. AND AS BRET SAID, HAVING SOME OF THESE PRESENTATIONS AVAILABLE ON THE NET SO WE CAN READ THEM AND REFLECT ON THEM. IT WILL PROBABLY RAISE MORE QUESTIONS THAN WE'LL HAVE IN THIS SESSION. THANK YOU, RAY, AND I'LL INVITE ONE OTHER SPEAKER ON THE TOPIC WHICH IS FROM -- IT'S ANOTHER SIMILAR CONCEPT FROM AN ORGANIZATION WHICH IS NEWLY CREATED CALLED THE GLOBAL DOMAIN NAME EXCHANGE. SO TONY FARROW WILL PROVIDE HIS PRESENTATION.
>>TONY FARROW: I'LL MAKE A PRESENTATION COPY AVAILABLE FOR BRUCE.
THANK YOU, BRUCE, AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TODAY.
I THINK YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING A LITTLE EARLIER ON ABOUT ROLES VERSUS COMPANIES.
AND I'M TONY FARROW FROM GDNX.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE'RE A COMPANY ACTING AS A SERVICE PROVIDER IN THIS AREA.
SO I'M COMING AT THIS AS A SERVICE PROVIDER TRYING TO ESTABLISH A SERVICE FOR REGISTRARS AND REGISTRANTS IN THIS SPACE.
JUST BEAR WITH ME HERE FOR A SECOND.
BRUCE HAS GIVEN ME A TEN-MINUTE WARNING AT THE START.
SO I JUST WANT TO....
THIS IS A -- AN ORGANIZATION THAT WE'RE LAUNCHING HERE AT ICANN CALLED GDNX OR THE GLOBAL DOMAIN NAME EXCHANGE.
MY NAME'S TONY FARROW, AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DEAL WITH ANY OF YOU FOLKS AFTER THIS SESSION FOR MORE INFORMATION.
GOING TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH SOME OF THE BENEFITS.
AND I THINK WE TOUCHED ON IT A LITTLE BIT TODAY WITH THE VIEW THAT AN EXCHANGE OR A STOCK EXCHANGE -- YOU'VE HEARD THOSE TERMS USED. AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS A SOLUTION FOR FACILITATING VALUE BACK TO THE CUSTOMERS OR THE REGISTRANTS WHERE A LOT OF THE DOMAIN NAME VALUE IS BEING GENERATED.
WE BELIEVE THAT A BROAD MARKET DRIVES THE BEST VALUE.
AND WE'LL GO TO A FEW EXAMPLES OF THAT.
WE BELIEVE THAT SERVICE PROVIDERS NEED TO CHARGE LOW TRANSACTION FEES AND THE FEES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT CHARGING ARE IN THE 2% RANGE.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU NEED TO TREAT THE DOMAIN NAME, I GUESS THE RIGHTS TO THE DOMAIN NAME AND ALL PARTS OF THE DOMAIN NAME LIFE CYCLE.
AND ALSO ANY SOLUTION TO THE SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THIS AREA NEEDS TO REFER TO ALL GTLDS OR CCTLDS, NOT JUST NECESSARILY A SPECIFIC ONE REGISTRY OR THE OTHER.
AND I THINK SOMETHING THAT I'VE HEARD A LITTLE BIT THIS MORNING, THE RIGHTS OF THE REGISTRANTS NEED TO BE PROTECTED THROUGH ALL PHASES OF THESE AUCTION SYSTEMS.
BROADER MARKET DRIVING THE BEST VALUE.
I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT BRINGING THE LARGEST NUMBER OF BUYERS AND SELLERS TO A CENTRALIZED PLACE OR THROUGH A CENTRALIZED LISTING AGENT ENSURES THAT THE REGISTRANTS, THE REGISTRARS, THE FOLKS INVOLVED GET THE BEST VALUE FOR THEIR MONEY.
EBAY, I MEAN, NASDAQ ARE VERY GOOD EXAMPLES.
AND WE'RE LOOKING AT MODELING SOMETHING WITHIN A NASDAQ OR NYSE EXAMPLE.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT GDNX ALLOWS BOTH REGISTRANTS AND REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES TO MAXIMIZE THIS VALUE.
AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE GDNX.
I'LL COME BACK TO THIS AND GO THROUGH THE DOMAIN NAME LIFE CYCLE FIRST AND THEN COME BACK.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IS PROVIDING A STOCK EXCHANGE MODEL WHERE MEMBERS WILL BE REGISTRARS, REGISTRANTS WILL BE CUSTOMERS OF THOSE MEMBERS OR REGISTRARS, AND ACTUALLY LOOKING AT ADDRESSING THE SALE OF THE DOMAIN NAME FOR EACH OF THESE -- OR THE SALES OF THE RIGHTS OF THESE DOMAIN NAMES THROUGH EACH OF THESE PHASES.
WE'VE HEARD A LITTLE BIT ALREADY THIS MORNING ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SELL THE RIGHTS OF THE DOMAIN NAME WHEN IT COMES TO THE REGISTRY. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO FACILITATE THIS EXCHANGE EARLIER IN THE MARKET WHEN THE DOMAIN NAME IS IN AN ACTIVE PHASE.
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD SAY THAT THE REGISTRANT CONTROLS THIS DOMAIN NAME AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY SELL THIS TO OTHER REGISTRANTS THROUGH GDNX AND THEIR MEMBERS.
THE MARKET NEEDS TO ADDRESS ALL OF THESE STAGES, NOT JUST AT THE DELETED PHASE OR WITHIN THE EXPIRED PHASE.
A SECURITIES EXCHANGE, YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH, THE MORGAN STANLEYS, THE MERRILL LYNCHS OF THE WORLD.
WE'RE LOOKING TO DO A VERY SIMILAR THING WITH THE GDNX, ACTING ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS WHO ARE REGISTRARS, THE TUCOWS THE ENCIRCAS OF THE WORLD.
THEIR CLIENTS ARE REGISTRANTS. THE REGISTRANTS DEAL WITH REGISTRARS.
AND THAT'S A RELATIONSHIP THAT'S BEEN DEFINED BY ICANN.
IT'S A TRUSTED RELATIONSHIP.
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE REGISTRARS CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE WHO THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH, THESE REGISTRANTS AND REGISTRARS.
SO THE EXCHANGE WOULD ACT AS A BACK-END SYSTEM FOR THESE REGISTRARS OR MEMBERS OF THE EXCHANGE.
COME BACK AND JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR TRANSACTION FEES.
WE'RE LOOKING AT CHARGING A 2% FEE TO BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER.
WE'RE LOOKING TO ENSURE THAT THE GDNX IS OPEN TO ALL OF THE TLDS OF ANY REGISTRY, NOT ONE OR TWO SPECIFICALLY.
I THINK THE ACTUAL EXCHANGE NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE DOMAIN NAME LIFE CYCLE OR THE RIGHTS TO THE DOMAIN NAME IN ALL OF THE PHASES, NOT JUST THE DELETED PHASE.
SO AS YOU MOVE EARLIER IN THE DOMAIN NAME LIFE CYCLE, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO FACILITATE COMMERCE WHEN IT'S ACTIVE.
THIS ENSURES THAT THE REGISTRANTS' RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED.
IF THEY'RE ABLE TO SELL OR SELL THE RIGHTS OF THESE DOMAIN NAMES THEMSELVES, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY DOWNSTREAM ON A REGISTRAR OR REGISTRY DOING IT, WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE REGISTRANT.
THE GDNX IS A COMPANY.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A ROLE; WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION THAT'S FACILITATING THIS.
AND IT'S AVAILABLE TODAY.
THE MODEL IS VERY COMPETITIVE.
WE DON'T BELIEVE, AS IN THE NYSE OR NASDAQ, THERE HAS TO BE JUST ONE EXCHANGE.
THERE CAN BE MULTIPLE EXCHANGES. AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO DRIVE COMPETITION.
THE REGISTRANTS NEED TO BE PROTECTED, AND THERE'S A FORMAT, AND I HEARD A LITTLE BIT OF IT THIS MORNING, THAT THE REGISTRANTS NEED TO BE PROTECTED BY THEIR REGISTRAR/REGISTRANT AGREEMENTS.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING I BELIEVE THAT THE GDNX WILL RESPECT.
SO WANT TO COME BACK AND MAKE SURE WE HIT THE TIME LIMIT THAT BRUCE HAS SET.
BROAD MARKET, LARGE NUMBER OF BUYERS, AND LARGE NUMBER OF SELLERS.
EACH DOMAIN NAME IF IT'S LISTED BY THE REGISTRANT IS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE OTHER REGISTRARS TO SELL.
THEY CAN SELL THAT RIGHT TO THEIR -- THEIR RESPECTIVE CUSTOMERS.
LOW COST.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH MARKET OR MARGIN THAT THE REGISTRARS CAN ACTUALLY SELL THESE SERVICES TO THEIR MEMBERS.
THE EXCHANGE TAKES A 2% CHARGE.
WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN COVER THE ENTIRE DOMAIN NAME LIFE CYCLE, NOT JUST THE DELETING PHASE.
AND THIS PROBLEM DOESN'T JUST EXIST IN THE WORLD THAT WE'VE HEARD; THIS PROBLEM IS GOING TO EXIST IN OTHER TLDS.
AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION THAT ADDRESSES THE LARGER MARKET.
REGISTRANTS NEED TO BE PROTECTED.
THE REGISTRAR/REGISTRANT AGREEMENT EXISTS TODAY.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FALLS WITHIN THAT MODEL TODAY.
WE HAVE A BOOTH OUTSIDE AND WE'RE DOING PRESENTATIONS AS WELL.
SO IF FOLKS WANT TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.
QUESTIONS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, TONY.
ANY QUESTIONS?
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THOUGHT IT WAS A TRADITION THAT I ASKED THE FIRST QUESTION.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, ACTUALLY.
AND, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A NEED, TONY, FOR CLARIFICATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT YOUR PROPOSED SERVICE -- IS IT APPROPRIATE TO CALL IT THAT, A PROPOSED SERVICE?
>>TONY FARROW: THE SERVICE IS AVAILABLE TODAY.
WE'RE LAUNCHING THE COMPANY.
THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS.
WE'RE ACTIVELY RECRUITING MEMBERS OF THE EXCHANGE.
>>MARILYN CADE: OKAY.
YOUR SERVICE.
I THINK YOU SAID THAT YOU BELIEVE OR THE GDNX BELIEVES THAT THIS KIND OF AUCTIONING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE EVEN IN THE ACTIVE PHASES OF THE DOMAIN NAME.
MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
>>TONY FARROW: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: I DID MISUNDERSTAND IT?
>>TONY FARROW: NO.
YOU'RE CORRECT.
IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE ACTIVE PHASE AS WELL.
IF A REGISTRANT DECIDES -- TODAY, THE REGISTRANTS ARE SORT OF LEFT WITH DO I LET THIS DOMAIN NAME EXPIRE?
DO I RENEW IT?
OR DO I GO TO SOME AFTER-MARKET SERVICE THAT'S AVAILABLE TODAY AND TRY TO SELL THIS IN AN OUT-OF-BOUNDS SERVICE.
WITH THE GDNX MODEL, THE REGISTRANT CAN GO BACK TO THE REGISTRAR AND SAY I WOULD LIKE TO LIST THIS?
THE EXCHANGE. AND THE REGISTRAR, IF THEY'RE A MEMBER OF THE EXCHANGE, CAN RESELL THAT RIGHT ON THEIR BEHALF.
>>MARILYN CADE: OKAY.
SO YOU'RE -- WHEN YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT, YOU, I THINK, JUST DESCRIBED THE SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD THE CONSENT OF THE PRESENT REGISTRANT, EVEN THOUGH THE NAME WAS ACTIVE.
IT WAS NOT THAT YOU WERE MAKING A DECISION DURING THE LAPSING PHASE OR REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD BASICALLY, THE REGISTRANT, MARILYN CADE, SAID I HAVE TEN NAMES, I'M NO LONGER USING A BUNCH OF THEM.
I MAKE THE DECISION TO GO TO GDNX --
>>TONY FARROW: THAT'S CORRECT.
YOU'RE DOING THAT THROUGH THE FAMILIAR WAY, YOUR REGISTRAR.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M FINE WITH THAT.
MY SECOND QUESTION ACTUALLY RAISES CONCERNS TO ME, BECAUSE I THINK THAT PROBABLY IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY WE MAY NOT HAVE FOLKS WHO MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD -- I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IF WE -- IF YOU HAVE NOT TALKED TO THE CCNSO, I WOULD REALLY URGE YOU TO DO SO.
YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING THAT YOU WOULD BE OFFERING SERVICES AFFECTING INDIVIDUAL -- TO INDIVIDUAL CCS.
OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING YOU WOULD BE GOING TO THE CC REGISTRANT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST CLARIFY SLIGHTLY ON THAT, MARILYN.
I THINK WHAT HE'S SUGGESTING IS TO REGISTRANTS THAT OWN CCTLDS, PROVIDING THOSE CCTLDS ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF THE RIGHTS BETWEEN REGISTRANTS.
THAT'S NOT A SERVICE TO -- NECESSARILY TO CCTLDS.
IS THAT CORRECT, TONY?
>>TONY FARROW: YES.
THANKS, BRUCE.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLY: MY QUESTION WAS SIMILAR TO MARILYN'S AND HAS TO DO WITH THE ACTIVE STAGE.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO CLARIFY THE BALANCE BETWEEN PASSIVE AND AGGRESSIVE ON THE PART OF YOUR COMPANY WHEN IT COMES TO THE REGISTRANTS' NAMES.
LIKE MARILYN'S EXAMPLE, IF I HAVE HALF A DOZEN NAMES, HOW DO I FIND OUT ABOUT THIS AND ARE YOU COMING TO ME OR ARE YOU COMING TO MY REGISTRAR, GOING THROUGH MY REGISTRY?
HOW DOES THIS WORK?
>>TONY FARROW: I THINK THE BEST EXAMPLE IS THE NYSE.
YOU'RE NOT SOLICITED BY THE NYSE TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES.
YOUR MEMBERS OF THE EXCHANGE OR STOCK EXCHANGE ARE BROKERS, THE MERRILL LYNCHES OF THE WORLD.
IN OUR ANALOGY, THOSE BROKERS ARE REGISTRARS OR MEMBERS OF OUR EXCHANGE.
THE EXCHANGE ITSELF OR THE GLOBAL DOMAIN NAME EXCHANGE DOES NOT CONTACT REGISTRANTS DIRECTLY.
THEY DEAL WITH THEIR FAMILIAR INTERFACE.
WHAT WE ARE IS A SERVICE ENABLER TO OUR PARTNERS OR MEMBERS AS THEY JOIN THE GDNX THAT IF THE REGISTRANT DECIDES TO SELL AN EXISTING NAME OR THE RIGHTS TO AN EXISTING NAME THROUGH THEIR REGISTRAR, WE CAN FACILITATE THAT.
WE CAN LIST THAT NAME IN THE EXCHANGE SO THAT OTHER REGISTRARS OR MEMBERS OF THE EXCHANGE CAN TRANSFER THOSE RIGHTS TO ANOTHER CLIENT OF THEIRS OR ANOTHER REGISTRANT.
SO VERY SIMILAR TO MAYBE WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOING ON WITHIN THE DELETED PHASE AND MOVING THE NAMES BETWEEN TWO REGISTRANTS VIA REGISTRARS, BUT NOT LIMITING IT TO JUST THAT PHASE.
TODAY, THIS IS GOING ON IN OTHER AFTER-MARKET PRODUCTS. AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS BRING THE REGISTRARS.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE REGISTRANTS HAVE THE FAMILIAR FACE, USER INTERFACE, AS WELL AS ARE PROTECTED BY AGREEMENTS THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION SETS.
>>MAUREEN CUBBERLY: THANK YOU.
BRUCE, MAY I ASK JUST ONE MORE QUESTION TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT?
THANKS.
THAT CLARIFIES THINGS.
SO YOUR NEGOTIATIONS, THEN, WOULD BE WITH THE REGISTRARS; YOU WOULD BE NEGOTIATING WITH MY REGISTRARS WITH WHOM I HAVE HOWEVER MANY REGISTRATIONS AND THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO DETERMINE HOW THEY DEAL WITH ME AS THE REGISTRANT; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>TONY FARROW: THAT'S CORRECT.
I MEAN, HOW THEY PRICE, HOW THEY DEAL IN VOLUME WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS OR REGISTRANTS ARE BUSINESS PRACTICES THAT WE CAN ENSURE ARE SET BY THE REGISTRARS.
WE DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THOSE BUSINESS PRACTICES.
>>MAUREEN CUBBERLY: THAT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO WHATEVER IS LEFT OF THE DOMAIN REGISTRATION PERIOD THAT I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR?
>>TONY FARROW: THAT'S CORRECT.
>>MAUREEN CUBBERLY: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I GUESS ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR FOR PEOPLE HERE IS THAT THESE AUCTION MODELS ALREADY EXIST.
THIS IS NOT PROPOSED MODELS.
THEY'RE IN THE MARKET TODAY.
AND PREDOMINANTLY, THEY'VE BEEN OCCURRING DURING THE ACTIVE PERIOD, AS IN THE PERIOD BEFORE A DOMAIN EXPIRES WITH A PARTICULAR REGISTRAR.
AND IN THE LAST I GUESS SIX MONTHS, THEY ARE GROWING RAPIDLY IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN THE NAME HAS EXPIRED AT THE REGISTRAR AND WHEN THE REGISTRAR DELETES THAT NAME IF IT'S NOT BEEN RENEWED.
SO I GUESS THAT'S PROBABLY THE MARKET CHANGE.
BUT, AGAIN, THAT'S HAPPENING TODAY, HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR THE LAST SIX TO 12 MONTHS.
SO ALL OF THESE -- WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET SO THAT WE CAN SEE DO WE HAVE CONCERNS, ARE THERE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH, PARTICULARLY TRYING TO GET USER INPUT.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES, BRUCE, THANK YOU.
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.
I'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THIS, THIS IS NOT TARGETED, REALLY, AT ANY OF THE PRESENTERS.
BECAUSE ALL OF THE PRESENTERS HAVE VERY RESPONSIBLY SAID THAT THEY INTEND TO LOOK AFTER THE INTEREST OF THE REGISTRANT.
BUT MY QUESTION IS REALLY THE CHAIN OF RESPONSIBILITY BACK TO ICANN AND TO THE POLICY PROCESSES OF ICANN.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO THINK A LOT MORE ABOUT THIS AND TALK MORE TO PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
BUT AS I'M THINKING IT THROUGH, I DON'T -- I CAN'T MAKE THAT CHAIN OF RESPONSIBILITY RIGHT NOW BACK TO THE POLICY PROCESSES OF ICANN IN RELATION TO IF THERE ARE POLICY IMPLICATIONS, SHOULD THERE BE POLICIES DEVELOPED, WHERE WOULD THEY APPLY?
WHAT ARE THE CONSUMER AWARENESS OR PROTECTION ASPECTS?
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I NEED TO GIVE MORE THOUGHT TO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BE VERY CONSCIOUS, THOUGH, THAT WE'RE STARTING FROM THE MISSION OF ICANN AND ITS CORE PRINCIPLES.
SO THE MISSION OF ICANN IS, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICIES THAT RELATE TO SECURITY AND STABILITY WHILE FOSTERING COMPETITION WHERE WE CAN.
AND I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT IN THE MARKET TODAY, FORGETTING AUCTION MODELS, BUT EVEN JUST TALKING DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, THERE'S CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES.
IT MAY NOT BE ICANN THAT CREATES CONSUMER PROTECTION.
SO IS THAT CLEAR, JUST THE POLICY CONSTRUCT HAS GOT TO COME FROM WHAT ICANN'S ROLE IS.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK I'M EXTREMELY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT BELONG TO GOVERNMENTS.
I LIVE WITH IT.
I WAS MAKING A DIFFERENT POINT.
AND THAT IS, IF WE ARE INTRODUCING A NEW INTERMEDIARY INTO THE PROCESS, THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE ANY POLICIES THAT WOULD APPLY.
AND I WOULD JUST SORT OF SAY FACETIOUSLY, ACTUALLY, I MYSELF SORT OF THINK THERE IS A SUBBULLET UNDER THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET, WHICH INCLUDES DON'T LET THE INTERNET GET REGULATED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
AND I THINK IN TERMS OF A NEW ENTITY, THE -- I JUST QUESTION THE TERM "NEW."
THE ENTITY EXISTS.
AND THE QUESTION IS THOSE ENTITIES EXIST.
THEY'RE NOT NEW ENTITIES.
THEY ARE THERE.
AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, AS YOU'RE SAYING IT, DOES THAT CAUSE CONCERNS RELATING TO SECURITY AND STABILITY.
IS THERE SOMETHING NEW THAT'S COMING OUT?
WE'VE GOT TO -- ICANN, THE WHOLE POINT OF ICANN AS AN ORGANIZATION, I THINK, WAS TO RESPOND TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET AND RESPOND FASTER THAN SOME OTHER TRADITIONAL BODIES HAVE BEEN.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, I GUESS, IN THE PUBLIC FORUM CONTEXT IS EXPLAIN WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE MARKET SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT.
BECAUSE THE MARKET MOVES FAST.
THE MARKET MOVED SUBSTANTIALLY BETWEEN CAPE TOWN AND NOW, FOR EXAMPLE.
PHIL.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, JUST TO SAY I ENJOYED YOUR PARAPHRASE OF ICANN'S MISSION THERE.
AN ALTERNATIVE MAY BE THAT IF SOMETHING IS SECURITY-AND-STABILITY NEUTRAL, WE SHOULDN'T BE ENABLING SOMETHING THAT IS IN ANY WAY ANTICOMPETITIVE.
SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT HOW WE JUDGE ANY OF THESE OPTIONS.
AND MAYBE JUST OUR JOB SHOULD BE ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH SOME PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE MARKET THEN CAN ADHERE IN TERMS OF THE WAY THAT IT OFFERS ALL OF THESE SERVICES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND I THINK, YEAH, PARTLY WE'VE GOT TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMS.
AND THAT'S, I GUESS, WHERE WE'VE GOT TO HIGHLIGHT THESE THINGS AND HAVE PEOPLE SAY, YOU KNOW, HERE'S A SERIES OF PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH THE MARKET.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S -- THEREFORE WE NEED TO ACT, RATHER THAN DO WE NEED TO ACT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE SORT OF NEED TO BE RESPONDING TO INFORMATION THAT'S COMING INTO US.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
THANKS, TONY, FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
>>TONY FARROW: THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND AS I SAID, ALL OF THESE THREE PRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE, AND THE TRANSCRIPT IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE AS WELL.
SO --
>>TONY FARROW: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: -- PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO REFLECT.
AND THE ADVANTAGE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING HERE, WHICH ARE VERY GOOD QUESTIONS, IS, WE HAVE BOTH THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS.
ONE THING WE PROBABLY SHOULD DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT, I GUESS, AND MAKE SURE, AS MARILYN SAYS, IT'S OFTEN HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE TERMINOLOGY BETWEEN REGISTRANT AND REGISTRAR.
THEY CAN SOUND SIMILAR, PARTICULARLY WITH MY ACCENT.
SO WE'LL GET THAT RIGHT.
OKAY.
WE ARE PROBABLY GETTING PRESSED FOR TIME.
BUT I DO WANT TO HAVE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHOIS, WHICH I THINK WE'LL TRY AND LIMIT TO HALF AN HOUR.
I THINK WHOIS IS PROBABLY A CONCEPT THAT WE'RE MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH, AND HOPEFULLY A HALF AN HOUR WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO JUST GET AN UPDATE FROM JORDYN ON THE -- HE IS ONE OF THE CO-CHAIRS ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WHOIS AREA.
AND ALSO PERHAPS HEAR FROM A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ON SOME OF THE MARKET-BASED MECHANISMS THAT ARE EMERGING TO MANAGE THE TRADEOFF BETWEEN BEING ABLE TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT AND BEING ABLE TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE REGISTRANT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THERE WE GO.
SO THIS WILL JUST BE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE NEW COMBINED WHOIS TASK FORCE.
UNTIL RECENTLY, THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE.
AND NOW THERE'S NOT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT WORK.
IN ANY CASE, JUST TO GIVE YOU A STATUS OF THE TASK FORCE, LAST YEAR, IN KUALA LUMPUR -- WELL, THE COUNCIL ORIGINALLY CHARTERED THROUGH WHOIS TASK FORCES.
NUMBER ONE WAS FOCUSED ON DATA MINING AS A TWO-SECOND SUMMARY, AND NUMBER TWO ON ACCESS TO WHOIS DATA, AND NUMBER THREE ON ACCURACY.
ALL THREE PRODUCED SOME SORT OF INITIAL REPORT AROUND KL LAST YEAR, JUST IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO IT.
LAST YEAR IN KUALA LUMPUR, TASK FORCES ONE AND TWO WERE MERGED BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME OVERLAP IN TERMS OF THE WORK PRODUCT OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THOSE PROBLEM REPORTS OR IN THOSE INITIAL DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THOSE TWO TASK FORCES.
RECENTLY, TASK FORCE THREE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MERGED IN THE COMBINED TASK FORCE ONE AND TWO.
SO NOW WE HAVE A COMBINED TASK FORCE ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
AS A RESULT OF THESE MERGES, THE CURRENT TASK FORCE INCLUDES ALL OF THE ORIGINAL TASK FORCE REPS AND ALL THE ORIGINAL WORK ITEMS IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTERS FOR ALL THREE TASK FORCES.
SO IT'S QUITE A BIT OF WORK.
WE MET SUNDAY WITH THE COUNCIL AND ACTUALLY REQUESTED THAT THE COUNCIL PERHAPS HELP US WITH A NEW CHARTER THAT WOULD NARROW THE SCOPE OF OUR WORK TO SOMETHING THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE DEFINED AND WOULD HELP US FIGURE OUT A NEW WORK PLAN, WHICH WE HOPE TO HAVE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
THERE ARE FOUR -- SORRY.
THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS THAT WE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED AS LIKELY TO BE CHANGES WE THOUGHT COULD BE ADVANCED AND HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER MAKING PART OF THE NEW CHARTER.
THE FIRST ITEM RELATES TO PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE USE -- OF HOW DATA IS USED, OF HOW CONTACT DATA IS USED WITHIN THE WHOIS SYSTEM TO REGISTRANTS, IMPROVING THE WAY THAT REGISTRANTS ARE NOTIFIED OF THAT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION.
WE'VE ALREADY DONE, ACTUALLY, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK ON THIS TOPIC, PRODUCED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, ESSENTIALLY, REQUIRE REGISTRARS TO PROVIDE A SEPARATE NOTIFICATION TO REGISTRANTS REGARDING THE USE OF THE -- THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION IN WHOIS.
SO, ESSENTIALLY, SOMETHING LIKE A STANDALONE CHECK BOX OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT DURING THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, "I UNDERSTAND THAT MY CONTACT INFORMATION WILL BE PLACED IN THE WHOIS."
SINCE THAT -- WE DEVELOPED THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'VE SOLICITED CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS AND RECEIVED THEM FROM FIVE OF THE SIX GNSO CONSTITUENCIES.
THE REGISTRIES AND THE REGISTRARS, ACTUALLY, THEIR CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS INDICATE THAT THEY OPPOSE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT THE OTHER THREE STATEMENTS WE RECEIVED AND I BELIEVE THE FOURTH CONSTITUENCY AS WELL GENERALLY SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND AS A RESULT, STAFF IS PREPARING AN INTERIM REPORT SUBJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PDP SO THAT WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE SECOND WORK ITEM THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK ON IS TO DEFINE A PROCEDURE TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS THAT REGISTRARS HAVE AND REGISTRIES HAVE IN TERMS OF COLLECTING AND DISPLAYING CONTACT INFORMATION AND LOCAL OR NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS.
IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THERE MAY BE CASES IN WHICH NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS EITHER PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT THE TYPES -- THE CURRENT WHOIS PRACTICES AS EMBODIED IN THE ICANN CONTRACT.
AND THE IDEA HERE WOULD BE TO -- IF SUCH A CASE WERE TO ARISE, TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR STAFF TO EVALUATE THE SITUATION AND POSSIBLY CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION.
THE LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS WAS ACTUALLY QUITE DETAILED AND PUBLISHED PRIOR TO -- SORRY, PUBLISHED PRIOR TO CAPE TOWN.
AND THE STAFF ACTUALLY RAISED A NUMBER OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'VE HAD -- SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED THAT INPUT FROM THE STAFF AND HAD A DIALOGUE WITH THEM AT THE TASK FORCE LEVEL.
AND THE TASK FORCE IS NOW REVISING THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT LIGHT.
AND THERE'S AN ONGOING DISCUSSION WITHIN THE TASK FORCE AS TO ULTIMATELY WHETHER THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE PART OF A FORMAL POLICY THAT WOULD BECOME A CONSENSUS POLICY OR WHETHER THEY OUGHT JUST TO BE A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS FRAMED -- FRAMED AS A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS OR ADVICE IS PROBABLY THE BETTER WORD TO THE STAFF AND/OR THE BOARD.
THE THIRD WORK ITEM RELATES TO THE ACCURACY OF WHOIS DATA.
AND THAT WAS WHAT TASK FORCE THREE WAS ORIGINALLY FOCUSED ON.
IN CAPE TOWN, TASK FORCE THREE MET AND DISCUSSED SOME PRINCIPLES TO ADVANCE THE WORK.
BUT WE HAD VERY LIMITED OR NO WORK OR PROGRESS ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC SINCE CAPE TOWN, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE TASK FORCE WAS RECENTLY MERGED WITH THE OTHER TWO.
AND I THINK WE HAVE AN INFORMAL AGREEMENT BASED ON -- RECENT AGREEMENT TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF WORK ON ACCURACY TO CORRECTING INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS AS OPPOSED TO NECESSARILY VERIFYING EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION PROACTIVELY.
BUT, ULTIMATELY, THAT WILL BE A SUBJECT FOR COUNCIL TO DISCUSS WITH REGARDS TO THE NEW CHARTER OF THE TASK FORCE.
THE LAST WORK ITEM IS TIERED ACCESS.
AND THIS IS THE CONCEPT THAT DEPENDING ON EITHER WHO YOU ARE OR HOW YOU MAKE THE REQUEST, YOU GET DIFFERENT INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO YOUR WHOIS QUERY.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GENERAL ACCESS -- UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO PORT-43 AS IT EXISTS TODAY MIGHT RETURN A LIMITED SET OF DATA.
AND IF YOU HAD SOME -- YOU WENT THROUGH SOME OTHER PROCESS TO PROVE WHO YOU WERE OR ESTABLISH THAT YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF CREDENTIALS OF SOME SORT TO BE DETERMINED THAT YOU WOULD GET A BROADER, RICHER SET OF DATA.
AND, FOR EXAMPLE, REGISTRARS MIGHT HAVE ACCESS TO YET ANOTHER SET OF DATA.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BOTH TASK FORCE ONE AND TASK FORCE TWO DEVELOPED SOME EARLY RECOMMENDATIONS ON.
AND WE HAVE NOT YET, AS A COMBINED TASK FORCE, GOTTEN TO THE POINT WE HAVE ANY CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE COULD PRESENT AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT.
BUT WE DID RECENTLY HAVE SEVERAL PRESENTATIONS FROM REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS WHO DO LIMIT ACCESS TO WHOIS DATA OR PROVIDE PRIVACY SERVICES IN A SIMILAR VEIN.
AND WE THINK THAT THAT MAY PROVIDE SOME USEFUL FOUNDATIONS FOR ONGOING WORK IN THIS AREA.
AND ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SIMILAR SET OF PRESENTATIONS IN JUST A MOMENT, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE SEGUE I'LL USE TO A FEW PRESENTERS ON THIS TOPIC, UNLESS COUNCILLORS HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
OKAY.
SO THE FIRST -- DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THE PRESENTERS, BRUCE OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT?
THE FIRST PRESENTER THAT WE'LL HAVE TODAY IS STEPHAN WELZEL FROM DNIC TO DESCRIBE DNIC'S CURRENT PRACTICE TO WHOIS DATA.
>> STEPHAN WELZEL: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
I'M STEFAN -- I'M GENERAL COUNSEL TO DENIC, THE DOT DE REGISTRY.
I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HOW WE HANDLE WHOIS I'VE BEEN ASKED YESTERDAY THAT'S THE REASON I HAVE NO SLIDES.
BUT I THINK WE WOULDN'T NEED ANY SLIDES ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY RATHER SIMPLE SO FIRST I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHICH DATA WE COLLECT FROM THE REGISTRANTS AND THE CONTEXT.
OF COURSE, WE COLLECT THE NAMES AND THE POSTAL ADDRESSES OF THE REGISTRANT AND THE CONTACTS.
ADDITIONALLY, WE ASK FOR THE PHONE NUMBER, THE FAX NUMBER, AND THE E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE CONTACTS, NOT FOR THE REGISTRANT.
THIS IS, HOWEVER, NOT THE DATA YOU CAN THEN LOOK UP IN OUR WHOIS.
WE DO NOT PUBLISH THE PHONE NUMBER, FAX NUMBER, AND E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT IN THE U.S. YOU WOULD ONLY GET NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDER AND THE CONTACTS AND THE PHONE NUMBER AND FAX AND E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE TECHNICAL CONTACTS.
HOWEVER, YOU CAN, IF YOU TURN TO US, IF YOU SEND US AN E-MAIL OR A LETTER AND YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED TO KNOW THE PHONE NUMBER OF THE ADMIN CONTACT, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN WE WILL GIVE THAT TO YOU AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE WHOIS.
THIS DATA IS AVAILABLE VIA THE WHOIS.
WE HAVE, AS PROBABLY EVERYONE, A WEB WHOIS IS A PORT-43 WHOIS.
AND WE IMPLEMENTED SOME KIND OF TWO-STEPS PROCESS THERE.
WHEN YOU USE THE WEB WHOIS AND YOU LOOK UP A DOMAIN NAME, AT FIRST, YOU ONLY GET THE INFORMATION WHETHER THAT DOMAIN NAME IS REGISTERED OR NOT.
THAT IS BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT USE THE WHOIS ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THAT INFORMATION.
THEY DON'T CARE WHO IS THE REGISTRANT; THEY ONLY WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THE DOMAIN NAME IS REGISTERED OR NOT.
AND THEN THERE'S NO REASON TO GIVE THEM THE DATA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IF YOU ARE, HOWEVER, INTERESTED IN THE ACTUAL DATA, THEN YOU NEED TO AGREE TO -- OR YOU COULD CALL IT SOME TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
THAT'S BASICALLY A SIMPLE RULE SAYING YOU MUST NOT USE THIS DATA FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
YOU AGREE TO THAT BY CLICKING ON A BUTTON, AND THEN YOU GET THE ACTUAL DATA.
FOR THE PORT-43 WHOIS, IT'S SIMILAR.
USUALLY YOU WILL ONLY BE TOLD WHETHER THE DOMAIN NAME IS REGISTERED OR NOT.
IF YOU SET A SPECIAL FLAG, YOU WILL GET THE WHOLE DATA, AND YOU'LL GET THIS RULE THAT YOU CANNOT USE THE DATA FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
YOU'LL GET THAT WHEN YOU SET UP THE CONNECTION TO THE -- VIA PORT-43 FOR THE FIRST TIME.
AND AFTER THAT, YOU JUST GET THE DATA.
PERHAPS YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED, THEN, IN THE FACT THAT THE -- THAT THESE RULES ALSO APPLY TO OUR REGISTRARS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION.
THE REGISTRARS GET ALSO THE PHONE NUMBER AND FAX NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS OF THE ADMIN CONTACT FOR ALL DOMAIN NAMES.
THAT REGISTRAR THAT ASKS FOR IT ADMINISTERS.
SO FOR THE DOMAIN NAMES, A REGISTRAR ADMINISTERS.
THE REGISTRAR GETS ALL DATA WE HAVE.
THAT'S OBVIOUS, BECAUSE WE ASSUME THAT THE REGISTRAR HAS THAT DATA ANYWAY.
WHY DO WE DO IT LIKE THIS?
OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH GERMAN DATA PROTECTION LAW.
THAT IS, AS YOU MIGHT KNOW, IN LARGE PART BASED ON EU DIRECTORS.
AND THE GERMAN PROTECTION LAW SAYS, OF COURSE, IT CAN PASS ON DATA TO THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE PUBLICATION OF DATA, IF THAT'S NECESSARY FOR YOU TO FULFILL YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE DATA OWNER.
THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T APPLY TO WHOIS, BECAUSE THE DOMAIN NAME CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH THE DOMAIN NAME OWNER REQUIRES US TO MAKE THE DOMAIN NAME WORK TO PUT THEM INTO THE ZONE.
IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO PUBLISH ANY DATA FOR THAT.
BUT THEN, GERMAN DATA PROTECTION LAW ALSO SAYS YOU CAN PASS ON DATA, PUBLISH DATA, WHEN YOU HAVE GOOD REASONS TO DO SO, AND WHEN THE DATA OWNER DOES NOT HAVE BETTER REASONS FOR YOU NOT TO DO SO.
AND THAT IS THE PROVISION THAT WE RELY ON.
I THINK I DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY WHOIS IS A GOOD THING AND A PROBABLY NECESSARY THING. SO WE DO HAVE GOOD REASONS TO PUBLISH DATA IN OUR WHOIS. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S SOMETHING WHICH IS POSSIBLY A GERMAN SPECIALTY. WE HAVE A LAW THAT SAYS WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL WEB SITE, YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, YOUR PHONE NUMBER, YOUR FAX NUMBER, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, AND ACTUALLY EVEN SOME MORE DATA ON THAT WEB SITE. AND THE LAW ALSO SAYS A COMMERCIAL -- A WEB SITE IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL WHEN YOU JUST HAVE A COMMERCIAL LINK ON IT, WHEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE ICON WITH A LINK THAT LEADS TO AN AMAZON WEB SITE, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND WE SAY, WELL, SO BASICALLY, EVERYONE WHO HAS A WEB SITE HAS TO PUT THEIR DATA ON IT. AND SINCE PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE THAT REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME PROBABLY WILL ALSO HAVE A WEB SITE, THAT MEANS MOST PEOPLE WHO REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME HAVE TO PUBLISH THAT'S DATA ANYWAY. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN PUBLISHING THEIR DATA IN OUR WHOIS DOESN'T MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. ACTUALLY, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
SO THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS THAT HAVE TO PUBLISH THEIR DATA ANYWAY HAVE NO REASON TO ASK US NOT TO PUBLISH THE SAME DATA IN OUR WHOIS.
AND THIS IS A LEGAL VIEW THAT WE HAVE AGREED ON WITH THE DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES. SO WE FOUND, AS I WOULD SAY, A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY ON ONE HAND AND THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS ON THE OTHER HAND. AND THE GOOD THING IS THIS BALANCE IS EVEN COMPLIANT WITH GERMAN LAW.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT DEAL WITH COMMERCIAL USE OF THE DOMAIN NAME VERSUS PRIVATE USE? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THERE ANY OBLIGATIONS ON THE PART OF A REGISTRANT WHO IS USING THE DOMAIN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OR COMMERCE?
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: YOU MEAN DO WE AS THE REGISTRY HAVE RULES FOR THAT?
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH.
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: NO.
>>KEN STUBBS: FOR BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT THERE MAY BE A REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY MORE DATA WITH RESPECT TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE DOMAIN VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL OR PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RULES ON THAT ALREADY, BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T POLICE AND ENFORCE SUCH RULES.
>>KEN STUBBS: I WASN'T CONCERNED AS MUCH ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AS I WAS ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE BEING MADE AT THE TIME THE DOMAIN WAS BEING REGISTERED.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU -- IF SOMEONE REGISTERED A DOMAIN WHICH WAS TO BE USED FOR PRIVATE USE AND THEN PROCEEDED TO VIOLATE THAT, THEN THERE WOULD BE POSSIBLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE DOMAIN DOWN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITHOUT --
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: ACTUALLY, IT WOULDN'T BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A RULE --
>>KEN STUBBS: I'M SORRY.
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: OH, OTHERWISE.
MARILYN AND -- PERHAPS LADIES FIRST.
>>TONY HARRIS: THIS IS TONY HARRIS OF THE ISPCP. MAYBE I MISSED IT IN YOUR PRESENTATION BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANY AUTHENTICATION PERHAPS, WHEN SOMEBODY REGISTERS A DOMAIN, DOES HE JUST PUT IN HIS DATA ON THE WEB SITE? DO YOU DO ANY DUE DILIGENCE ABOUT VERIFYING THE DATA HE SUPPLIES OR IS THIS NOT DONE?
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: WE DON'T AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION BECAUSE ALL THE PROCESSES ARE AUTOMATED AND THERE'S NO CENTRAL REGISTER OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES IN GERMANY, SO THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO CHECK THAT -- TO CHECK THE DATA THE REGISTRANT PROVIDES AGAINST SUCH A REGISTER. SO WE DON'T DO ANYTHING AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION, BUT IF WE GET A COMPLAINT FROM SOMEONE WHO SAYS, SAYS, WELL, CHECK THAT DOMAIN AND I FOUND THAT THE DATA IN YOUR WHOIS IS NOT CORRECT, THEN WE STEP IN AND DO SOMETHING. WE THEN ASK THE REGISTRAR WHETHER THE REGISTRAR KNOWS ANYTHING. WE TRY TO CONTACT THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDER.
AND AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS, EITHER WE GET CORRECT DATA FROM THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDER, AND IF WE ARE UNABLE TO GET CORRECT DATA, THEN WE TERMINATE THE CONTRACT AND DELETE THE DOMAIN NAME.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, NIKLAS.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: STEPHAN, THANKS A LOT FOR THEY VERY INTERESTING PRESENTATION.
JUST SO THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, I WOULD BE INTERESTED JUST TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE POLICY FOLLOWED BY DENIC WHEN IT COMES TO WHOIS OUTPUT AND WHAT WHOIS DATA IS MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, WOULD YOU SAY THE POLICY FOLLOWED BY DENIC IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT OTHER THICK REGISTRIES ARE REQUIRED TO DO AT ICANN LEVEL?
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK SO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: STEPHAN, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK A BIT AND ASK YOU TO WALK ME THROUGH AGAIN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SITES THAT ARE DETERMINED TO BE COMMERCIAL BY THE GERMAN LAW.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, GERMANY HAS A LAW THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE HOLDING YOURSELF FORTH SORT OF TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE PUBLIC; I.E., YOU ARE A COMMERCIAL SITE, THEN ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL INFORMATION HAS TO BE ON YOUR WEB SITE.
DOES THE LAW SPECIFY THAT THE INFORMATION MUST BE ACCURATE AND UPDATED? DO YOU KNOW THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL?
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: WELL, THE LAW SAYS THE DATA HAS TO BE THERE, AND IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT HAS TO BE ACCURATE DATA.
IF IT'S NOT ACCURATE, THEN YOU WILL PROBABLY SOONER OR LATER BE SUED BY -- BY SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT SOMETHING FROM YOUR WEB SITE AND THEN COULDN'T CONTACT YOU PROPERLY, AND YOU ALSO CAN BE FINED FOR THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION, THEN, AGAIN, TO GO BACK, AT THE REGISTRY LEVEL YOU HAVE THE EQUIVALENT OF THIS KIND OF INFORMATION. BUT IT'S NOT DISPLAYED; IS THAT RIGHT? YOU GATHER IT, BUT YOU DON'T DISPLAY IT, EVEN FOR THE COMMERCIAL SITES.
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: SORRY, I DIDN'T GET ALL OF THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH THIS IDEA IN THE TASK FORCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, RIGHT NOW, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, FIRST OF ALL, YOU GATHER THE DATA, AND WHAT ARE THE DATA ELEMENTS THAT YOU GATHER? THAT BEING SORT OF STEP ONE. AND THEN STEP TWO, THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH DATA IS DISPLAYED. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OPERATION.
SO YOU GATHER THE DATA FROM ALL OF THESE SITES AT THE --
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: NO, NO, NO. I'M SORRY, I PROBABLY DIDN'T MAKE THAT CLEAR.
WE GET THE DATA FROM THE REGISTRANTS WHEN THEY REGISTER THEIR DOMAIN NAME AND WE TAKE THAT DATA, OF COURSE. WE DO NOT CARE WHAT DATA THEY HAVE ON THEIR WEB SITE.
>>MARILYN CADE: OH, RIGHT. SORRY, I JUST MEANT YOU WERE GATHERING SIMILAR KINDS OF INFORMATION.
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: THE INFORMATION IS SIMILAR, YES, BUT WE DO NOT CHECK WEB SITES OR COMPARE THAT AND TAKE THE DATA FROM THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY QUESTION IS REALLY, YOU HAVE THE DATA, YOU'VE GATHERED IT. BUT EVEN FOR THE COMMERCIAL SITES, AS I UNDERSTOOD THIS, IT'S NOT DISPLAYED. BUT IF I REQUEST THE DATA FROM YOU AND GIVE A LEGITIMATE REASON, I AM ABLE TO GET IT.
>>>: STEPHANE: YOU -- WE MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO CONFUSE THE TWO ISSUES.
ON THE ONE HAND, THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDER --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO MOVE THE MIKE CLOSER, MARILYN. IS THAT CORRECT, STEVE?
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: ON THE ONE HAND, THE DOMAIN NAME HOLDER IF HE HAS A WEB SITE HAS TO PUT CERTAIN DATA ON IT. WE COLLECT CERTAIN DATA, AS I SAID, AND WE PUBLISH MOST OF THE DATA WE COLLECT. THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE DO NOT PUBLISH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARIA DID YOU WANT TO GIVE A GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT SOME OF THE EUROPEAN LAWS?
>>MARIA FARRELL: YES, THANKS, BRUCE. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?
YEAH, I THINK POSSIBLY SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND THIS GERMAN LAW MAY RELATE TO THE EUROPEAN E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE WHICH REQUIRES A WEB SITE THAT IS GOING TO BE AN INFORMATION SOCIETY SERVICE PROVIDER, THAT IS MOSTLY ANY KIND OF E-COMMERCE WEB SITE TO PROVIDE FULL CONTACT DETAILS ON THE WEB SITE. AND HOWEVER, THE E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE, THIS SEEMS TO BE POSSIBLY A PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OR MAYBE THE GERMANS HAD THIS IDEA ON THE FIRST PLACE, I'M NOT SURE, BUT E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE DOES ITSELF DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WEB SITES THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS AND THOSE THAT AREN'T. SO IT'S PROBABLY JUST WORTH NOTING THAT AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL -- FOR CONTACT DETAILS FOR COMMERCIAL WEB SITES AND THROUGH -- ARE THERE THROUGHOUT THE EU. BUT -- AND THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NONCOMMERCIAL WEB SITES, NONCOMMERCIAL WEB SITES THROUGHOUT THE EU ARE NOT GENERALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FULL CONTACT INFORMATION. THANKS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARIA. IT WOULD BE USEFUL, ACTUALLY, IF YOU COULD POST A REFERENCE ON THE COUNCIL LIST JUST WITH THAT PARTICULAR E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTACT DETAILS.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: STEPHAN, JUST AS A CLARIFYING QUESTION. DO YOU THEREFORE ACTUALLY TAG IN SOME WAY WEB SITES BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NONCOMMERCIAL?
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: NO. WE DON'T CARE HOW A DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED AND WHETHER THERE IS A WEB SITE THAT'S COMMERCIAL OR NOT.
THIS IS JUST A LEGAL ARGUMENT. WE SAY, AND THE DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES AGREE WITH THAT, WE SAY THAT, LOOK, MOST PEOPLE HAVE A WEB SITE, AND MOST OF THEM WILL AT LEAST HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL LINK, SO IT'S FAIR TO SAY MOST REGISTRANTS WILL HAVE A COMMERCIAL WEB SITE.
AND ON THAT WEB SITE, THEY HAVE TO PUBLISH THEIR DATA ANYWAY, SO WHY WOULDN'T WE PUBLISH THE DATA IN OUR WHOIS.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU'RE MAKING A VERY REASONABLE ARGUMENT BASED UPON THE REQUIREMENTS OF DATA PROTECTION TO SAY -- TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION SAYING IF THERE'S A WEB SITE THERE, THEN PROBABLY, AND ANYWAY, THAT REQUIREMENT EXISTS, SO THEREFORE LETS BE SENSIBLE ABOUT THIS. I THINK THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING AND PRAGMATIC WAY FORWARD, I GUESS. YEAH.
>>STEPHAN WELZEL: IT'S A GENERAL -- IT'S AN ABSTRACT ARGUMENT. WE DO NOT APPLY THAT TO SINGLE, CONCRETE CASES. WE SEE THAT IS THE GENERAL ASSUMPTION AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THERE'S NO LEGAL PROBLEM WITH WHOIS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. I'M CONSCIOUS, I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL WE DON'T REPEAT THE ROLE OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE DURING THIS SESSION.
YES, QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR? BOB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT?
>>BOB CONNELLY: I'M BOB CONNELLY. IT'S NOT ON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M BOB CONNELLLY. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE PRIOR PRESENTATIONS ON THE AUCTION PROCESSES, ET CETERA.
WE TODAY ARE THE GRANDCHILDREN OF WHAT BEGAN IN 1996 WITH THE INTERNET AD HOC COMMITTEE.
ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS WE AS CORE MEMBERS WERE UNDER WAS THAT WE WOULD NOT REGISTER DOMAIN NAMES FOR A COMPANY OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH WERE NEEDED IN THE NORMAL PROCESS OF OUR BUSINESS AS A REGISTRAR.
IT SOUNDED TO ME AS THOUGH SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THIS MORNING ERASE THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE REGISTRANT AND THE REGISTRAR.
I JUST CHATTED WITH JON. HE'S NOT SURE THAT THAT'S IN OUR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE.
WE ALSO THEN, IN CORE, EXTENDED THAT TO A PROHIBITION ON FRONT RUNNING; THAT IS, A PROCESS IN WHICH THE BROKER, AND WE HAD SOME GOOD ANALOGIES TO THE PROCESS AT WHICH THE REGISTRAR WAS PERHAPS A BROKER FOR A REGISTRANT WHO WANTED TO BUY A DOMAIN, AND IN FRONT RUNNING THAT BROKER IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE BUSINESS MIGHT SAY "I THINK CHARLIE IS GOING TO WANT TO BUY SOME OF THIS STOCK SO I'LL BUY IT FOR HIM -- I'LL BUY IT FOR MY OWN ACCOUNT AND THEN MARK IT UP AND SELL IT TO HIM." THAT'S FRONT RUNNING.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROCESSES DESCRIBED BEFORE, THIS MORNING, SOME OF THEM WOULD VIOLATE ANY RULES ON FRONT RUNNING, AND I THINK IF THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON REGISTRARS HAVING LARGE BACKLOGS OF DOMAINS THAT THEY'RE SITTING THERE LOOKING FOR CUSTOMERS FOR, I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS WHICH ARE BEING DONE OR COULD BE DONE WOULD BREACH WHAT ARE GOOD PRACTICES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN IN OUR CODE OF CONDUCT HAD WE EVER APPROVED THE CODE OF CONDUCT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, BOB.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR? OKAY. JORDAN, I THINK YOU HAD A -- HERE YOU ARE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: WE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION ON THE WHOIS TOPIC, THIS TIME FROM A REGISTRAR WHO PROVIDES A PRIVACY SERVICE FOR WHOIS DATA, AND IT'S NETWORK SOLUTIONS TALKING ABOUT THEIR PRIVATE REGISTRATION SERVICE. JON NEVETT.
>>JON NEVETT: THANKS, JORDYN. JORDYN ASKED ME TO GIVE A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF OUR PRIVATE REGISTRATION SERVICE, SO I HAVE TWO SLIDES THAT I'LL PRESENT, AND I THINK I GAVE TO GLEN, SO YOU ALL WILL HAVE THEM.
ESSENTIALLY OUR PRIVATE REGISTRATION SERVICE PROTECTS REGISTRANTS FROM UNWANTED SPAM, IDENTITY THEFT, HARASSMENT, STALKERS, TELEMARKETERS, ET CETERA. WE CHARGE $9 A YEAR FOR THE SERVICE, AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DO IS -- AND IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE PROXY SERVICES THAT ARE OUT THERE, WE KEEP THE REGISTRANT'S NAME AS IS ON WHOIS, BUT THEN WE CREATE ALTERNATE PHONE NUMBERS, E-MAIL ADDRESSES, AND A P.O. BOX FOR REGISTRANTS AND THAT'S WHAT APPEARS IN THE WHOIS LISTING AND THAT STILL PROVIDES THE PUBLIC AN ABILITY TO CONTACT THE WHOIS REGISTRANTS. ESSENTIALLY WE SEND AN E-MAIL, THE E-MAIL WILL CHANGE EVERY TEN DAYS TO PROTECT AGAINST SPAM. WE FILTER IT FOR SPAM AND SEND THE E-MAILS DIRECTLY TO THE REGISTRANT. OR IF YOU SEND SOMETHING TO THE P.O. BOX, WE WILL CONTACT THE REGISTRANT AND FORWARD CERTIFIED AND EXPRESS MAIL. AND IF YOU CALL THE PHONE NUMBER THAT'S PROVIDED IN WHOIS, THERE WILL BE INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT DIRECTLY.
THIS WILL BE HARD TO SEE -- ACTUALLY, IMPOSSIBLE TO READ, BUT THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF A WHOIS RECORD. THE DOMAIN NAME IS NOVA AFFILIATE MARKETING.COM, IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK IT UP.
YOU'LL SEE THE REGISTRANT INFORMATION, THE CONTACT INFORMATION, AND THE MAILING ADDRESS, E-MAIL ADDRESS, AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE SERVICE.
AT ANY POINT, AT OUR DISCRETION, WE COULD REPOPULATE THE ORIGINAL WHOIS INFORMATION IF CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES OCCUR, SUCH AS REQUEST FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, REQUESTS ABOUT TRADEMARK VIOLATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND WE KEEP THAT RIGHT IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE CUSTOMER TO REPOPULATE AND DISCLOSE, IF NECESSARY.
ANY QUESTIONS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YOUR SERVICE, IN TERMS OF BEING PROTECTION FROM SPAM, OF COURSE, ASSUMES THAT WHOIS IS THE SOURCE OF SPAM OR ANY OTHER PROBLEMS YOU'RE ADDRESSING THERE.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH SUGGESTED THAT OTHER SOURCES -- THAT SOURCES OTHER THAN WHOIS ARE, INDEED, THE PRIME CAUSES OF THAT.
WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT IN THE MARKET TODAY AS TO THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHOIS AS A SOURCE OF SPAM AS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING ELSE?
>>JON NEVETT: YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHOIS AS A SOURCE OF SPAM VERSUS ANY OTHER SOURCE OF SPAM.
OUR PRACTICE AND OUR RESEARCH CERTAINLY SHOWS THAT WHOIS IS A SOURCE OF SPAM, AND THIS WOULD PROTECT AGAINST THAT.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WOULD YOU SAY IT'S A MINORITY SOURCE OF SPAM OR MAJORITY SOURCE OF SPAM? ARE YOU ABLE TO SAY THAT?
>>JON NEVETT: I'M NOT ABLE TO SAY THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JON?
OKAY; THANKS, JON, FOR THE PRESENTATION.
>>JON NEVETT: THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT, JORDYN?
>>TONY HARRIS: BRUCE, MAY I SAY SOMETHING, MAKE A SMALL ANNOUNCEMENT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, GO AHEAD.
>>TONY HARRIS: JUST SO YOU KNOW AND EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM KNOWS, COFFEE BREAK IS ALREADY AVAILABLE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, TONY.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION THAT WAS -- OR AN ISSUE RAISED BY DANNY YOUNGER WHO HAS POSTED A NOTE FOR THE GNSO FORUM AND THAT IS HE'S STATING THAT THERE'S AN ONGOING LAWSUIT BETWEEN TWO REGISTRARS THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED THE PROBLEMS FACED BY REGISTRANTS WHEN REGISTRARS GO INTO RECEIVERSHIP.
THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT SETS OUT ESCROW REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRARS WHICH WOULD SERVE TO PROTECT THE REGISTRANT, BUT IT IS UNKNOWN TO WHAT DEGREE REGISTRARS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO ESCROW SUCH DATA.
HE'S ASKING WOULD THE GNSO BE WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE BY ASKING ICANN TO PROVIDE STATISTICS ON THE DEGREE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RAA'S DATA ESCROW PROVISIONS?
AT A GENERAL LEVEL I THINK THE COUNCIL FROM A SECURITY AND STABILITY POINT OF VIEW BELIEVES THIS IS IMPORTANT.
DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT, ROSS? GO AHEAD.
>>ROSS RADER: I THINK DANNY IS RAISING AN EXCELLENT POINT THERE AND WE AS A COUNCIL SHOULD PROBABLY DIG INTO IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. I'M NOT SURE THE COURSE OF ACTION HE OUTLINES IS APPROPRIATE BUT CERTAINLY THE ISSUE OF WHERE THE ICANN ESCROW PROGRAM IS, WHERE THE DATA ESCROW REQUIREMENTS ARE, AND HOW REGISTRARS CAN START TO ESCROW THEIR DATA IS A QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD LOOK INTO FURTHER.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT I THINK WE'LL DO IN RESPONSE TO THAT IS PUT THAT QUESTION ON NOTICE, AND THE NEXT COUNCIL TELECONFERENCE WE HAVE, WE'LL ASK THE ICANN STAFF TO REPORT ON THE STATUS OF ESCROW.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I DID NOTE THAT AT THE PRESENTATION OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN ON MONDAY EVENING, ONE OF THE PROGRAMS THAT STAFF DISCUSSED COMPLETING THIS YEAR, OR AT LEAST MAKING PROGRESS ON, WAS AN ESCROW PROGRAM.
I WANTED MORE DETAIL ABOUT THAT MYSELF, SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM STAFF WHAT EXACTLY HAS BEEN DONE OVER THE PAST YEAR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO WE'LL PUT THAT QUESTION ON NOTICE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT, BRUCE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR AS COUNCIL, AND PERHAPS EVEN DISCUSS IT A BIT MORE, ABOUT HOW WE PHRASE OUR QUESTION. BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO ESCROW YOUR DATA EXISTS TODAY. AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY WHAT ICANN IS PROPOSING IS TO DEVELOP AN ICANN SERVICE OF -- THAT WOULD PROVIDE ESCROW SERVICES.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD CLARIFY. BECAUSE GETTING A REPORT ON WHETHER -- WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE REGISTRARS ARE ESCROWING THEIR DATA TODAY WOULD BE ONE THING, AND THEN HEARING FROM ICANN ON A PROPOSED PROGRAM THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING MIGHT BE AN AUGMENTATION TO THE FACTS ABOUT WHO IS ALREADY ESCROWING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND FOR THE NEXT MEETING, I'M REALLY JUST LOOKING AT MORE OR LESS A VERBAL REPORT. I'M NOT LOOKING FOR AN EXTENSIVE ISSUES REPORT.
SO I THINK I WILL JUST ASK THE STAFF TO BE AVAILABLE AND WE CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE TOO FORMAL ABOUT IT AT THIS STAGE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER -- YES, PETER.
>>PETER FORMAN: WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE, I HAVE A COMMENT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC. OKAY.
THIS IS PETER FORMAN FROM REGISTER.COM.
I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST THAT THE DOT NET CONTRACT BE REVIEWED WITH THE GNSO COUNCIL BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE OR ARE FINISHED WITH VERISIGN.
I HAVE A FEW REASONS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND THE WAY WE READ IT, THE CONTRACT INCLUDES A PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT OF RENEWAL, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT UNLESS THEY ARE FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF A BREACH IN COURT, THIS WILL BE A CONTRACT IN PERPETUITY.
THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THE CONTRACT, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, FOR INFLUENCING VERISIGN, FOR CORRECTING BEHAVIORS, PUNISHING THEM IN MODERATE WAYS SHORT OF A BREACH. OR EVEN CHANGING THE CONTRACT IN THE FUTURE. ONCE THIS CONTRACT IS SIGNED AND ASSUMING THAT THEY DO NOT BREACH, THIS IS THE CONTRACT FOREVER.
LET'S -- JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, IF IN SIX YEARS THE COMMUNITY THINKS THAT THE 425 PRICE THAT'S BUILT INTO THE CONTRACT IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE, THEY BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE HIGHER, THEY BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE LOWER, THERE'S NO WAY TO CHANGE IT. THIS IS THE CONTRACT THAT WE WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH FOREVER.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS I THINK THAT ARE CRITICAL TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION OF REGISTRY VERSUS REGISTRAR SERVICES. THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT REGISTRY SERVICES, BUT THERE'S A WIDE BERTH FOR THEM TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IN THE FUTURE AFTER THE CONTRACT IS INKED AS IT RELATED TO GOING INTO NEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
AS AN EXAMPLE, WITH 35 MILLION APPROXIMATE DOT COM NAMES AND ANOTHER MILLION DOT NET NAMES UNDER MANAGEMENT, THEY HAVE AN ENORMOUS SCALE. ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE THEY CHOOSE TO OFFER TO THE COMMUNITY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE DESTRUCTIVE OF COMPETITION.
AND NO ONE CAN COMPETE WITH THAT.
THEY COULD DAMAGE EVEN OTHER REGISTRIES. THEY COULD DAMAGE THE WHOLE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY. THEY COULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE MODEL OF REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AS IT IS TODAY.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS THEY BE FOCUSED ON OR GRANTED THE RIGHT TO LAUNCH, AGAIN, WITH ICANN'S PERMISSION, SERVICES, REGISTRY SERVICES AND OTHER PRODUCTS WHICH THEY CAN DO BETTER THAN REGISTRARS. SORT OF LIKE THE MANUFACTURER/RETAILER MODEL. THEY ARE THE MANUFACTURER. IN THIS CASE THEY ARE GETTING AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY TO BE THAT MANUFACTURER. THE RETAILERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO WORK WITH THIS MANUFACTURER.
IN THE REAL WORLD, IF THE MANUFACTURER CHOOSES TO COMPETE IN SOME WAY WITH THE RETAILERS THAT THEY DON'T CONSIDER ACCEPTABLE OR THAT'S NOT HEALTHY, THE RETAILERS CAN GO TO ANOTHER MANUFACTURER.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT THE MONOPOLY CONTRACT CREATES CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS ON THE REGISTRY THAT NEEDS TO CONSTRAIN THEIR BEHAVIOR.
ALSO, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, THEY'VE PROVEN IN THE PAST TO BE VERY WILLING TO -- WHETHER IT'S WLS OR SITE FINDER -- TO LAUNCH NEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES EVEN IN THE FACE OF SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY OPPOSITION.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S AN INCREDIBLY REMOTE PROSPECT THAT THEY WOULD LAUNCH NEW SERVICES THAT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC.
SO, IN SUMMARY, AGAIN, I WOULD REQUEST THAT -- OR SUGGEST THAT YOU FOLKS REQUEST THAT THE CONTRACT BE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU FOR REVIEW, POSSIBLY FOR INPUT FROM THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES, AND THAT THE CONTRACT BE A MUCH MORE HOLISTIC PROCESS THAN IT IS TODAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PETER.
IF I CAN SUGGEST, I THINK, FROM A PROCESS POINT OF VIEW THAT THE CONTRACT IS CURRENTLY, IF YOU LIKE, BEING NEGOTIATED BETWEEN ICANN AND THE -- CURRENTLY, THE FIRST NAME PARTY FROM THE EVALUATION, BEING VERISIGN, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO COMMENT IN WRITING ON THAT CONTRACT.
AND I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO -- ALL THOSE POINTS YOU JUST RAISED, TO PUT IN WRITING AND PUT IT INTO THE PUBLIC -- INTO THE COMMENT ON THAT CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACT ALSO HAS A PROVISION IN IT THAT SAYS THAT THE -- ANY CONSENSUS POLICY THAT'S DEVELOPED BASICALLY OVERRIDES THE TERMS IN THE CONTRACT.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE -- SOME OF THOSE ISSUES YOU RAISED, IF THE COMMUNITY, GNSO COMMUNITY, BELIEVES THAT WE SHOULD MAKE A POLICY ON SOME OF THOSE ISSUES, THAT POLICY WILL BOTH SUPERSEDE THAT CONTRACT AND APPLY TO ALL OTHER REGISTRY CONTRACTS.
SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF MAKE IT CLEAR THERE'S KIND OF DIFFERENT TIME LINES.
I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S REASONABLE FOR THE BOARD TO GIVE A CONTRACT TO THE GNSO COUNCIL TO ESSENTIALLY BE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATING IT.
I THINK AT THIS STAGE, ALL OF US -- AND I WILL RAISE ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S IN THAT CONTRACT THAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE COMMENTING ON.
BUT I THINK AT THIS STAGE IN THE TIME LINE, I THINK WE NEED TO COMMENT ON IT AS INDIVIDUALS.
BUT THAT'S NOT PRECLUDING US IN THE FUTURE FROM SAYING THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION BETWEEN REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR SERVICES, AND YOU WANT TO MAKE A POLICY ON THAT.
THAT GOES AND ACTUALLY BECOMES A CONSENSUS POLICY. AND IT WOULD OVERRIDE THE TERMS IN THAT AGREEMENT.
IS THAT CLEAR?
>> PETER FORMAN: YES, THANK YOU, BRUCE.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS TIME PRESSURE.
I WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY REMIND EVERYONE AND SUGGEST THIS IS A CONTRACT FUNCTIONALLY PERPETUALLY IN PERPETUITY.
AND IT NEEDS TO BE VETTED VERY CAREFULLY, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY -- THERE ARE LIMITED MECHANISMS TO AMEND IT IN THE FUTURE.
MAYBE THROUGH THE POLICY SIDE.
BUT FROM THE CONTRACT ITSELF IS THE CONTRACT THAT WE WILL ALL BE BOUND WITH UNTIL WE ARE ALL GRAY, FOR THOSE OF US WHO AREN'T ALREADY GRAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THANKS, PETER.
GO AHEAD, ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: THERE WE GO.
AS A COUNCILLOR, ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE PICK UP ON A BIT OF WHAT PETER HAS TOUCHED ON THERE.
I THINK THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS POTENTIAL POLICY IMPLICATIONS TO THE PRESUMPTIVE RENEWAL CLAUSES IN THAT CONTRACT AND AT THE VERY LEAST, WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE MAY BE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND AS A COUNCILLOR, I WILL PROPOSE AT THIS TIME THAT SHOULD WE CONTINUE DISCUSSING THIS -- AND I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING IT -- I THINK THE COUNCILLORS SHOULD EACH DECLARE THEIR INTEREST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT.
WE HAVE A KIND OF -- WE HAVEN'T, I GUESS, KIND OF FORMALLY CONVENED THE COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE WE'RE STILL ESSENTIALLY TAKING PUBLIC INPUT.
AND I THINK AT THAT POINT, WE'LL THEN DECIDE WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT TO TAKE ON THOSE COMMENTS.
>>MARILYN CADE: I AGREE THAT WE'RE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT.
BUT IF WE'RE HAVING A DIALOGUE AMONG OURSELVES, THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: A FAIR COMMENT.
YES.
OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR?
OKAY.
WELL, THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC FORUM PORTION OF THIS MEETING.
AND AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO FORMALLY CONVENE THE COUNCIL MEETING ITSELF AND JUST GO THROUGH THE COUNCIL AGENDA.
THE FIRST THING I SHOULD DO IS TO IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, EITHER HERE PHYSICALLY AND ONLINE.
GO AHEAD.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M TERRIBLY SORRY.
BUT SHOULDN'T WE PERHAPS TAKE A VERY SHORT BREAK?
AND THEN RECONVENE?
FOR HEALTH PURPOSES.
>>KEN STUBBS: OKAY.
SOLID FIVE.
OPEN IN FIVE MINUTES REGARDLESS.
>>MARILYN CADE: THAT WAS DELICATE ENOUGH, WASN'T IT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'LL TAKE A SHORT FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AND THEN FORMALLY CONVENE THE COUNCIL MEETING.
(10:40 A.M.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers