The Subteam met on Friday as planned and discussed next steps.

2.       We received the last of the reviewed comment summaries yesterday and are incorporating them into the list.  We will recirculate the updated template list shortly.

3.       Once the final list is circulated, there will be a final chance for the WG to indicate that particular comments have already been addressed by other Subteams.

4.       We have a good second draft of our summary complete and we continue our work on refining it.  We expect to have our summary for the WG meeting next Tuesday.

• Section I.B(iii) - On the question of whether providers can charge a nominal cost-recovery fee: the word “standardized” will be deleted.
• Section II.A(6)(b)(ii): On the reasons for requesters to use and retain information: either rephrase (i) and (ii) to be less “legalistic” and self-referencing (to clarify what the objectives are), or delete (ii) entirely
• Section III.B – On the topic of “secure communication channels”: concern about too-narrow a definition of “secure”, so either a workable definition is developed (James Gannon to provide a first draft) or (preferably in the view of some WG members) this be rephrased as a best practice

• Section III.C(v) and (vi) - Any overlap that would merit merging, or keep “as is”?
• Annex 1 – Both options have been retained; are there further comments/suggestions regarding this?
• GENERALLY – Do the Annex E framework requirements demonstrate “verifiable evidence” that can justify disclosure?
• Section I.D and GENERALLY – Do the Respect our Privacy and Save Domain Privacy comments require re-examining a provider’s flexibility to publish details or terminate for breach of terms of service? (Staff Note: this seems currently consistent with the WG’s approach on other Preliminary Recommendations about what a provider must include in its terms of service, and what it must publish about those terms – e.g. Preliminary Recommendations #6, #7, #8, #9)
• Section III.D and GENERALLY – Does the overall discussion about many commenters’ belief that a court order should be obtained require the WG to re-examine its recommendation that “disclosure cannot be refused solely for lack of …. A court order”?

• Section III.C(iv) - On whether it should be optional or mandatory for providers to offer the ability for a customer to give up its domain name registration in lieu of disclosure, please note that in another Preliminary Recommendation (#8) the WG does not recommend this as a mandatory requirement; the wording of Preliminary Recommendation #8 contemplates that some providers will while others will not offer this option.