[dow1-2tf] Whois tf 1&2 draft notes teleconference 21 September 2004

["GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: dow1-2tf[at]gnso.icann.org]

Please find the draft notes of the Whois task force 1 & 2 call on September
21, 2004.
Please let me know if you would like anything changed before they are
published on the GNSO website page.
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep.

Thank you very much.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
***********************************
WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 Teleconference 21 September, 2004 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:


GNSO Constituency representatives:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Co-Chair
Registrars constituency - Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
Liaisons:
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler


ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry

Absent:
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade, apologies
Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris,
apologies
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie
Mansourkia, apologies
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks, apologies
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren, apologies
Amadeu Abril l Abril
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller - apologies
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders - apologies
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer

MP3 recording


Jeff Neuman introduced the topic "Conspicuous notice" which stemmed out of a
task force 2 requirement
Steve Metalitz summarized the task force 2 data analysis on consent stating
that the Registrars Accreditation Agreement said that registrars were
supposed to tell registrants what use would be made and who would have
access to Whois data and obtain the registrants consent. The task force 2
asked registrars how they obtained consent from registrants but
unfortunately did not receive much information to the questionnaires. The
ICANN staff also did a survey looking at the websites of a number of
registrars. Most registrars were including the statement of consent in a
very large user agreement with many other provisions. A summary of the
results of survey conducted by ICANN staff stated that 2 registrars obtained
specific consent from registrants via Registration Agreements but when task
force members looked at these it appeared that they were being asked to a
consent to a whole user agreement. In terms of the questionnaire some
European registrars stated that customers were not required to give express
consent in terms of their local law.
Concerns:
- some registrars were not obtaining the consent the Registrars
Accreditation Agreement (RAA) required of them
- should something be done to bring this issue more to the attention of
registrants and should it be sufficient to have this as one of many terms in
the user agreement
or should there be one click that says" I agree"
At that level it would be fairly straight forward.
Should ICANN require or encourage registrars to obtain specific consent from
registrants on the issue of user Whois data.

Jeff Neuman asked whether separate consent could be a click through button
or some mechanism like that

Jordyn Buchanan stated that the TF 3 initial report mentioned 3 specific
recommendations on which the task force reached consensus:

ICANN should:
a) incorporate compliance with the notification and consent requirement
(R.A.A. Secs. 3.7.7.4, 3.7.7.5) as part of its overall plan to improve
registrar compliance with the RAA. (See MOU Amendment II.C.14.d).
b) issue an advisory reminding registrars of the importance of compliance
with this contractual requirement, even registrars operating primarily in
countries in which local law apparently does not require registrant consent
to be obtained.
c) encourage development of best practices that will improve the
effectiveness of giving notice to, and obtaining consent from, domain name
registrants with regard to uses of registrant contact data, such as by
requesting that GNSO commence a policy development process (or other
procedure) with goal of developing such best practices.

(c) could be a focus of the work:
develop best practices for separate consent to be obtained,
discuss various mechanisms that might be useful,
or having an implementation team look at how it could best be done

Jordyn Buchanan went on to say that there could be a variety of ways of
approaching the issue from specific language to results orientated
mechanisms which would allow the registrant to understand what they had
consented to

Tom Keller commented that it was important to define a standard form that
could be used by all registrars and displayed uniformly. However,
- what would the consequences be if the box were not checked?
- would there be one notice or differentiation between bulk Whois Regular
Whois, options on the amount of data ?

Jeff Neuman mentioned that it could be in the form of a "Whois policy" just
as there are privacy policies
Tom Keller mentioned that it would be a problem for example in Germany, it
could not be a yes or no as checking a box to buy a product would be
feasible but does not work in privacy matters. There must be an option.

Most European Registrars do not do anything because they are trying to abide
by the ICANN regulations

If the check box is taken to conspicuous notice level, the box would be
checked meaning that the notice had been read but not necessarily agreed to
Jeff Neuman said the check box could be any form as long as it was an
affirmation that the notice had been read.

Steve Metalitz commented that consent for the purpose of the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement was different from consent according to
international law
Jeff Neuman commented that the issue was breaking out "notice" from
"consent".
Looking at the "notice" aspect and deal with "consent" later in the call or
on the next call

Jeff Neuman referred to the definition of "conspicuous" used in the United
States:
Section 1-201 of the UCC defines "Conspicuous" as:
"A term of clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable
person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A printed
heading in capitals is conspicuous. Language in the body of a form is
"conspicuous" if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color. Whether
a term or clause is "conspicuous" or not is for decision by the court.
Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to
or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font,
or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B)
language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the
surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding
text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by
symbols or other marks that call attention to the language."

Jeff Neuman commented that there could be two different ways of presenting
the notice:
- as part of the registrars accreditation agreement
- as a separate Whois policy

Barabra Roseman raised the following issues :
- If too prescriptive, difficult to determine how conspicuous notice would
be provided
- Compliance aspect - how would it be anticipated that ICANN would enforce
compliance - should every reseller be checked - how would non web-based
registrations be handled
The more prescriptive the more difficult the issues becomes with regard to
the amount of work for ICANN, whether every reseller should be checked, how
to deal with non web-based registrations.

Paul Stahura commented that form a practical point of view it would be
difficult to get companies to put a check box unless it were part of the
registration agreement and suggested that by changing the registration
agreement or the Whois output the policy would reach more registrants.

Jeff Neuman stated that the findings in tf 2 were that in most agreements
notice was not adequate and the requirement was that some sort of
conspicuous notice be provided to the registrants on the Whois policy above
and beyond current practices.
Steve Metalitz stated that the word conspicuous was not used in tf 2 but the
ft suggested that it should be best practices to improve the effectiveness
of giving notice to the registrant.
Paul Stahura was in favour of changing the text so there would be one,
rather than multiple check boxes


Steve Metalitz suggests that if the new policy goes into effect, the
registrars need to notify ICANN of what they are doing to comply
Jordyn Buchanan suggests enforcement side in a separate conversation from
the actual mechanism side
Thomas Roessler suggested:
- a separate agreement for consent to publication of data on privacy as may
be required by law,
- link not a good idea for conspicuous notice as people would not read it
- a success measurement for the policy such as a random sample of
registrars, questions involving their data and what they know will happen to
their data before the policy becomes effective and a random sample of new
registrars after the policy has become effective
- have Whois output in the notice and not the notice in the Whois output.

Jeff Neuman referring to Marilyn Cade's e-mail would it help to ask legal
experts, perhaps from other countries what conspicuous meant.
David Maher did not feel legal experts were necessary.
Steve Metalitz agreed that legal experts were not necessary and repeated
that the task force did not use the term conspicuous but rather looked for
ways to better inform people and get their agreement to the policy.
Suggested addressing the issues related to people registering with other
methods than web based.

Jeff Neuman commented that people could not be forced to read agreements.
To "have done your job" is accepted and legal experts could clarify what
what it means in different countries to have done your job.

David Maher suggested a practical approach to the a definition of
conspicuous.
Paul Stahura if information was the aim the notice should be put it in the
Whois output, if agreement was the aim, it could be there in bold text
Jordyn Buchanan felt that it was not a legal issue, but that it would be
useful to bring in usability experts to advise on presenting the information
in meaningful way to the user.

Summary of ideas for improving the ways of giving notice and getting consent
from registrants:
- check box
- changing the Whois output
- a deferent type of print, all caps, bold etc in the Registration
agreement/Whois output
- a separate link to a description of a few key issues relating to privacy
issues/separate section on privacy issues


Next steps:
- Use mailing list to express views
- Discuss options - why you support them, why you do not support them
- Consider usability experts
- Legal experts because it is legal
- Post the text of what should be conspicuous


Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their presence and
participation.
The call ended at 12:15 EST, 18:15 CET

Next Call: 28 September 2004
see: GNSO calendar











<!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 1 and 2 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="21 September 2004" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 
minutes'"-->
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task 
Forces 
  1 and 2 Teleconference 21 September, 2004 - Minutes</b></font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ATTENDEES:<br>
  </font></b></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GNSO Constituency 
representatives:<br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries 
constituency: 
  - Jeff</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Neuman</font><b><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">Co-Chair</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency 
  - Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries 
constituency 
  - David Maher </font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency 
  - Paul Stahura<br>
  Registrars constituency - Tom Keller</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property 
Interests 
  Constituency - Steve Metalitz </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Liaisons:</b><br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler<br>
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff Manager</b>: Barbara Roseman</font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>GNSO Secretariat:</b> Glen de Saint G&eacute;ry <br>
  <br>
  <b>Absent:</b></font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commercial and Business Users 
constituency 
  - Marilyn Cade</font>, <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">apologies</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commercial and Business Users 
constituency 
  - David Fares</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and Connectivity 
  Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris, apologies</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and Connectivity 
  Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia, apologies</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests 
Constituency 
  - Jeremy Banks</font>,<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
apologies</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests 
Constituency 
  - Niklas Lagergren, apologies</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">Amadeu 
  Abril l Abril</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users Constituency 
  - Milton Mueller </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - apologies </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users 
Constituency 
  - Marc Schneiders </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - apologies </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> <font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer <br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20040921-tf12.mp3";>MP3 
recording</a><br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> introduced the 
  topic &quot;Conspicuous notice&quot; which stemmed out of a <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/doc00000.doc";>task 
  force 2 requirement</a><br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz </b>summarized the task force 2 data analysis on consent 
stating 
  that the Registrars Accreditation Agreement said that registrars were 
supposed 
  to tell registrants what use would be made and who would have access to Whois 
  data and obtain the registrants consent. The task force </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2 
  asked registrars how they obtained consent from registrants but unfortunately 
  did not receive much information to the questionnaires. The ICANN staff also 
  did a survey looking at the websites of a number of registrars. Most 
registrars 
  were including the statement of consent in a very large user agreement with 
  many other provisions. A summary of the results of survey conducted by ICANN 
  staff stated that 2 registrars obtained specific consent from registrants via 
  Registration Agreements but when task force members looked at these it 
appeared 
  that they were being asked to a consent to a whole user agreement. In terms 
  of the questionnaire some European registrars stated that customers were not 
  required to give express consent in terms of their local law. <br>
  Concerns:<br>
  - some registrars were not obtaining the consent the Registrars Accreditation 
  Agreement (RAA) required of them <br>
  - should something be done to bring this issue more to the attention of 
registrants 
  and should it be sufficient to have this as one of many terms in the user 
agreement 
  <br>
  or should there be one click that says&quot; I agree&quot; <br>
  At that level it would be fairly straight forward. <br>
  Should ICANN require or encourage registrars to obtain specific consent from 
  registrants on the issue of user Whois data. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> asked whether 
  separate consent could be a click through button or some mechanism like 
that</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> stated that 
  the TF 3 initial report mentioned <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois-tf2-preliminary.html#Recommendations";>3
 
  specific recommendations</a> on which the task force reached 
consensus:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ICANN should: <br>
  a) incorporate compliance with the notification and consent requirement 
(R.A.A. 
  Secs. 3.7.7.4, 3.7.7.5) as part of its overall plan to improve registrar 
compliance 
  with the RAA. (See MOU Amendment II.C.14.d).<br>
  b) issue an advisory reminding registrars of the importance of compliance 
with 
  this contractual requirement, even registrars operating primarily in 
countries 
  in which local law apparently does not require registrant consent to be 
obtained. 
  <br>
  c) encourage development of best practices that will improve the 
effectiveness 
  of giving notice to, and obtaining consent from, domain name registrants with 
  regard to uses of registrant contact data, such as by requesting that GNSO 
commence 
  a policy development process (or other procedure) with goal of developing 
such 
  best practices. <br>
  <br>
  (c) could be a focus of the work: <br>
  develop best practices for separate consent to be obtained, <br>
  discuss various mechanisms that might be useful, <br>
  or having an implementation team look at how it could best be done<br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> went on to say that there could be a variety of ways 
  of approaching the issue from specific language to results orientated 
mechanisms 
  which would allow the registrant to understand what they had consented to<br>
  <br>
  T<b>om Keller</b> commented that it was important to define a standard form 
  that could be used by all registrars and displayed uniformly. However, <br>
  - what would the consequences be if the box were not checked?<br>
  - would there be one notice or differentiation between bulk Whois Regular 
Whois, 
  options on the amount of data ?<br>
  <br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman</b> mentioned that it could be in the form of a &quot;Whois 
policy&quot; 
  just as there are privacy policies<br>
  <b>Tom Keller</b> mentioned that it would be a problem for example in 
Germany, 
  it could not be a yes or no as checking a box to buy a product would be 
feasible 
  but does not work in privacy matters. There must be an option.<br>
  <br>
  Most European Registrars do not do anything because they are trying to abide 
  by the ICANN regulations<br>
  <br>
  If the check box is taken to conspicuous notice level, the box would be 
checked 
  meaning that the notice had been read but not necessarily agreed to<br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman</b> said the check box could be any form as long as it was an 
  affirmation that the notice had been read.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>Steve Metalitz</b> commented 
  that consent for the purpose of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement was 
different 
  from consent according to international law <br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman</b> commented that the issue was breaking out 
&quot;notice&quot; 
  from &quot;consent&quot;.<br>
  Looking at the &quot;notice&quot; aspect and deal with &quot;consent&quot; 
later 
  in the call or on the next call</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> referred to the 
  definition of &quot;conspicuous&quot; used in the United States:<br>
  <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00013.html";>Section
 
  1-201 of the UCC defines "Conspicuous"</a> as: <br>
  "A term of clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable 
person 
  against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A printed heading in 
  capitals is conspicuous. Language in the body of a form is "conspicuous" if 
  it is in larger or other contrasting type or color. Whether a term or clause 
  is "conspicuous" or not is for decision by the court. Conspicuous terms 
include 
  the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the 
  surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding 
  text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or 
  display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, 
font, 
  or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from 
surrounding 
  text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the 
language." 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> commented that 
  there could be two different ways of presenting the notice:<br>
  - as part of the registrars accreditation agreement<br>
  - as a separate Whois policy</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Barabra Roseman</b> raised the 
  following issues :<br>
  - If too prescriptive, difficult to determine how conspicuous notice would be 
  provided<br>
  - Compliance aspect - how would it be anticipated that ICANN would enforce 
compliance 
  - should every reseller be checked - how would non web-based registrations be 
  handled<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The more prescriptive the 
more 
  difficult the issues becomes with regard to the amount of work for ICANN, 
whether 
  every reseller should be checked, how to deal with non web-based 
registrations.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Paul Stahura</b> commented that form a practical point of view it would be 
  difficult to get companies to put a check box unless it were part of the 
registration 
  agreement and </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">suggested that 
  by changing the registration agreement or the Whois output the policy would 
  reach more registrants.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> stated that the 
  findings in tf 2 were that in most agreements notice was not adequate and the 
  requirement was that some sort of conspicuous notice be provided to the 
registrants 
  on the Whois policy above and beyond current practices.<br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz</b> stated that the word conspicuous was not used in tf 2 
  but the ft suggested that it should be best practices to improve the 
effectiveness 
  of giving notice to the registrant.<br>
  <b>Paul Stahura</b> was in favour of changing the text so there would be one, 
  rather than multiple check boxes<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Steve Metalitz</b> suggests 
that 
  if the new policy goes into effect, the registrars need to notify ICANN of 
what 
  they are doing to comply<br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> suggests enforcement side in a separate conversation 
  from the actual mechanism side<br>
  <b>Thomas Roessler </b>suggested: <br>
  - a separate agreement for consent to publication of data on privacy as may 
  be required by law, <br>
  - link not a good idea for conspicuous notice as people would not read it<br>
  - a success measurement for the policy such as a random sample of registrars, 
  questions involving their data and what they know will happen to their data 
  before the policy becomes effective and a random sample of new registrars 
after 
  the policy has become effective<br>
  - have Whois output in the notice and not the notice in the Whois 
output.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> referring to <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00017.html";>Marilyn
 
  Cade's e-mail</a> would it help to ask legal experts, perhaps from other 
countries 
  what conspicuous meant.<br>
  <b>David Maher</b> did not feel legal experts were necessary.<br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz </b>agreed that legal experts were not necessary and 
repeated 
  that the task force did not use the term conspicuous but rather looked for 
ways 
  to better inform people and get their agreement to the policy.<br>
  Suggested addressing the issues related to people registering with other 
methods 
  than web based.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> commented that 
  people could not be forced to read agreements.<br>
  To &quot;have done your job&quot; is accepted and legal experts could clarify 
  what what it means in different countries to have done your job.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>David Maher </b>suggested a 
practical 
  approach to the a definition of conspicuous.<b><br>
  Paul Stahura</b> if information was the aim the notice should be put it in 
the 
  Whois output, if agreement was the aim, it could be there in bold text<br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> felt that it was not a legal issue, but that it would 
  be useful to bring in usability experts to advise on presenting the 
information 
  in meaningful way to the user.<br>
  <b><br>
  Summary of ideas for improving the ways of giving notice and getting consent 
  from registrants:</b><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- check box<br>
  - changing the Whois output<br>
  - a deferent type of print, all caps, bold etc in the Registration 
agreement/Whois 
  output <br>
  - a separate link to a description of a few key issues relating to privacy 
issues/separate 
  section on privacy issues <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
  <b><br>
  Next steps:</b><br>
  - Use mailing list to express views<br>
  - Discuss options - why you support them, why you do not support them<br>
  - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Consider usability 
experts<br>
  - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Legal experts because it 
  is legal </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
  - Post the text of what should be conspicuous<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan 
  thanked everyone for their presence and participation. <br>
  The call ended at 12:15 EST, 18:15 CET<br>
  </b><b><br>
  </b><b>Next Call:</b> <b>28 September 2004<br>
  see: </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>GNSO 
  calendar</a><b><br>
  <br>
  </b></font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>