J. Scott Evans, Executive Vice President of the IPC, called the meeting to order and welcomed all attendees. A list of the attendees is attached.

Nick Wood, the representative from MARQUES and chairman of the IPC Membership Committee, delivered the Membership Report. Mr. Wood advised the constituency that a membership committee does exist and that its members are from various regions throughout the world. Since Melbourne, the Membership committee has approved of 10 new members and has received 12 applications. Mr. Wood further advised that there is now an IPC membership site, http://www.ipc-membership.org.

Andrew Collins, the representative from APAA and the IPC Treasurer, reported on the financial health of the IPC. Mr. Collins stated that dues notices had been sent to the members of the IPC and that there remain some outstanding receipts, namely nine Category Three members. The IPC was able to pay its US$15,000 dues to ICANN. There remains US$7,500 in the IPC coffers.

Mr. Evans reported that a list of FAQs has been posted on both the INTA and IPC websites. On the IPC site, the FAQs have been translated into Italian, Spanish, and Arabic.

Mr. Evans reported that this committee, under the leadership of Neal Greenfield, will determine what criteria should be used to determine what did and did not work in terms of IP protection in the new gTLDs.

Jane Mutimear, IPC Vice President and representative from AIPPI, introduced Dr. Annette Kur of the Max Planck Institute. Dr. Kur reported on the raw statistics thus far gathered in the institute’s IPC funded UDRP study. Dr. Kur indicated that she and the graduate students assisting her will be looking for trends in the data and that she hopes to have a final report later this fall.

At the invitation of the constituency, Dr. Willie Black, the Managing Director of Nominet UK, the operator of the .uk ccTLD, made a presentation on the proposed revisions to the .uk dispute resolution policy. Dr. Black stressed that Nominet is dedicated to ensuring neutrality and equality in its dispute resolution processes. In addition to the proposed amendments, Nominet will continue to stress mediation as a primary means for resolving disputes. Dr. Black hopes that Nominet’s adaptation of the UDRP using mediation and locally qualified panelists will become a model for other ccTLDs.

Nominet continues to grapple with issues such as the initially proposed "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and the nature of an appeals process.

At the invitation of the constituency, representatives from .info, .biz, .pro and .name presented the nature of the IP protections afforded in each of their respective gTLDs.

Mr. Evans presented the WHOIS report on behalf of IPC President Steve Metalitz.

• Beginning June 7, the questionnaire of the Names Council WHOIS Committee will be posted. Comments are welcome.

• As part of the new ICANN-VeriSign agreement, VeriSign is obligated to dedicate part of its $200 million in infrastructure improvements to a universal WHOIS.

• WIPO solicited comments on WHOIS in both the WIPO2 Interim Report and in an RFC on best practices in the ccTLDs.

• Progress has been made in negotiations with .name. Adequate access to WHOIS data will be provided.

Mr. Timothy Denton, a representative of Tucows, an ICANN accredited registrar, stated that the existing Registrar Accreditation Agreement amounts to "mandatory sale of customer data." Mr. Denton further noted that for the purposes of bulk access there is presently an "opt out" provision for domain name customers. Tucows essentially wants to change that to an "opt-in."

On behalf of the IPC, Mr. Evans expressed concern with the Tucows proposal, noting that the bulk access provides valuable information to trademark owners for the purposes of establishing a "pattern and practice" of bad-faith under the UDRP. Trademark search firms like T&T and Coresearch use the bulk access information to assist trademark owners in protecting their marks. Mr. Evans further noted that WHOIS is a public record and not a trade secret.

Mr. Denton noted that Tucows intent is not to restrict access for the purposes of IP protection, but for commercial sales. Mr. Denton advised that he would be providing the IPC with draft language for review.

Mr. Evans presented the ccTLD report on behalf of IP Names Council representative Guillermo Carey. Mr. Carey’s report notes that the ccTLD best practices paper that was put out by the ccTLD Constituency has no mention of the need for the collection of accurate WHOIS data nor the need to make registrant contact data public.

There was an open discussion at the meeting concerning alternate roots and alternate naming schemes. Mr. Evans noted that papers by Business Constituency member Grant Forsyth, IPC President Stuart Lynn, and engineer Kent Crispin all note the benefits of maintaining a single, authoritative root. Mr. Evans noted that while the IPC has no formal position on the subject, his general sense from speaking with intellectual property counsel is that they too believe that a single, authoritative root is the best approach. Representatives from New.net were present at the meeting and said that those who took the single, authoritative root position did not understand the technology behind New.net’s system. Mr. Evans noted that he was not specifically addressing New.net, but the views of IP owners on the debate as a whole. There was also discussion between Jane Mutimear and a representative of New.net. Ms. Mutimear noted that she had not been able to locate proper WHOIS information during a recent visit to the New.net web site. This was disputed by the New.net representatives present at the meet. [It should be noted that Ms. Mutimear later met with New.net and determined that WHOIS data is available on New.net registrants through the New.net site.] Ms Mutimear also noted that the IPC had not formally adopted a position on alternate root systems, but that as intellectual property issues arose, members of the IPC had had dialogue with New.net representatives at the Melbourne ICANN meeting, raising issues such as the need for Whois and acccess to the UDRP.

Mr. Evans noted that the Names Council will be examining the UDRP in the coming months. He added that the ccTLDs would like to leave the DNSO and form their own supporting organization.

There being no further business, Mr. Evans closed the meeting and thanked all attendees for their participation.

Minutes Prepared by Michael Heltzer, INTA Representative