Re: [discuss] Unofficial minutes June 11 1999 Names Council Meeting

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

Anthony,

For the record, your reporting on the first part of the meeting is
innacurate. I welcome the fact that you inform, but you should not report
on a part of a conversation that you have not heard complete, at it sends
the wrong signals, and bits are taken out of context. You should be
specially careful when the official scribe for the meeting disagrees on
what you are reporting.

Don Telage was told that we had not received from ICANN the name of the one
gTLD constituency representative specified in the Berlin resolution of the
ICANN Board. He responded that there were three of them and was told that
we had been told by ICANN (Berlin resolution) that there was to be only
one, and that we were a committee of ICANN. The Board is in command on
ICANN procedural matters.

As we had not received the name of the gTLD Constituency member of the
provisional Names Council, Don Telage was admitted as an observer.

The bridge was set for an exact number of people, including representatives
from all constituencies. There were three lines for each constituency,
except one for the gTLD Constituency (which, as far as we know, has only
one representative or observer). Admitting anybody else to the
teleconference would have kept a member of the Names Council away from it.
We are considering webcasting future teleconferences, to avoid this problem.

Javier

At 11:37 17/06/99 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>>From Antony Van Couvering:
>
>Here are minutes of the Names Council Meeting which took place on June 11,
>1999 via a teleconference hookup.   These notes are a conflation of two sets
>of notes, one taken taken by Susan Anthony, the other by Antony Van
>Couvering.  In the case of a clash, Susan's notes have ruled (there were a
>couple of cases where we had people speaking in different order).  I
>stitched the notes together, and any errors must be mine.  Please note that
>these minutes are not verbatim, they are paraphrases of what was said.
>Susan was the "official" notetaker of the event, and she has agreed to these
>minutes, so they should be dubbed "official" as well.  I also think they're
>accurate.
>
>As a courtesy, the notes were passed on to the participants after I typed
>them, to see if I made any mistakes.  I received a few comments, and I have
>indicated them in the text in brackets.  In addition, I didn't send these to
>David Maher or Tony Harris because I didn't have their email addresses,
>although I asked that the other participants pass them along.  I don't know
>if they were passed along, because I received no comments from either of the
>two.
>
>Participants (I don't think I missed anyone, but people were coming and
>going, as well as being asked to leave or being denied entry.  When this
>happened, I have tried to note who and when).
>
>On the Call:
>
>Javier Sola (NC Member, Business Constituency)
>Theresa Swinehart (NC Member, Business Constituency)
>Jon Englund (NC Member, Business Constituency)
>Jonathan Cohen (NC Member, IP Constituency)
>Susan Anthony (NC Member, IP Constituency)
>Ted Shapiro (NC Member, IP Constituency)
>Horifumi Hota (NC Member, ISP Constituency)
>Tony Harris (NC Member, ISP Constituency)
>Michael Schneider (NC Member, ISP Constituency)
>Randy Bush (As Observer, NC Constituency)
>Michael Sondow (As Observer, NC Constituency)
>David Maher (As Observer, NC Constituency)
>Milton Mueller (As Observer, NC Constituency)
>Ken Stubbs (As Observer, Registrar Constituency)
>Amadeu Abril i Abril (As Observer, Registrar Constituency)
>Don Telage (As Observer, gTLD Constituency)
>Richard Sexton (As Observer, gTLD Constituency)
>David Johnson (As Observer, gTLD Constituency)
>Antony Van Couvering (As Observer, ccTLD Constituency)
>Fay Howard (As Observer, ccTLD Constituency)
>Elisabeth Porteneuve (As administrator of the DNSO.ORG website)
>Joe Sims - ICANN's lawyer
>Mike Roberts - CEO of ICANN
>
>The conference call began at noon Eastern Standard Time, the notes begin
>shortly thereafter.
>
>[Notes begin in medias res]
>
>Javier Sola - There is only one position for the gTLD constituency
>
>Don Telage - It says in the bylaws that the gTLD constituency should have 3
>reps
>
>J. Sola - I have strict instructions from the ICANN board not to let you on
>
>[Note: Although these are the words I wrote in my notes, Ken Stubbs wrote
>that the "strict instructions" were not about Don Telage participating, but
>about NSI having 3 participants on the call instead of one - and that makes
>perfect sense, because Don Telage did stay on the call.    Here's what Ken
>Stubbs wrote:
>
>"all appears substantially correct except i don't believe that javier ever
>stated that he had instructions not to let don telage on the c/c.  i believe
>that he indicated that nsi was only allowed to have one person on and that
>the others must go. it was my understanding that don remained on the call .
>that would be consistant with don's comments after the others were
>instructed to leave."
>
>It should also be noted that as I had *just* arrived at this juncture, the
>conversation as I heard it was out of context and therefore my notes also.
>I encourage others who witnessed the entirety of the exchange to correct any
>false impressions I may have given.
>
>Milton Mueller writes to say that he remembers Javier Sola saying exactly
>what I wrote, but Randy Bush writes to say that doesn't remember this, and
>Susan Anthony agrees with Randy Bush.
>
>In any case, Don Telage stayed on the call and Richard Sexton was cut off.]
>
>[J. Sola asks operator to cut off Richard Sexton from teleconf.  Also cut
>off on Javier Sola's instructions near this time or shortly thereafter:
>Michael Sondow]
>
>[Meeting called to order by Javier Sola]
>
>J. Sola - I move that the meeting be closed.
>
>[Operator interrupts: - V. Carrington seeks to come in.  J. Sola instructs
>operator that V. Carrington cannot be on the call.]
>
>[Asks for vote.  Voting in favor of closed meeting: T. Swinehart, T.
>Shapiro, H. Hota, S. Anthony, J. Sola.  Voting in favor of open meeting: J.
>Cohen]
>
>[J. Englund joins teleconf.  Votes for closed meeting]
>
>D. Telage - I want to go on record as saying this meeting is a sham.
>
>[J. Sola asks that non-invited observers hang up]
>
>F. Howard - I want to go on record as wanting this meeting to be open.
>
>[Milton Mueller writes to say that he added a "Me too" at this point.]
>
>
>D. Johnson - States that he is listed as an observer and asks if he can stay
>
>J. Sola - No, doesn't think that's possible.
>
>D. Johnson - My personal advice is that things would be much more productive
>if everyone were invited to participate.
>
>[D. Johnson hangs up] [Randy Bush writes to note that we don't know for
>certain that he hung up.]
>
>[S. Anthony volunteers to take notes]
>
>J. Sola - Let's deal with the creation of Working Group A - Chapter 3 of the
>WIPO report.  A list of names is read out [AVC - see
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/calendardnso.html for a list of names].  We have to
>create a working group A because it has to report at the beginning of July
>so that we can have an open comment period at the end of July. Some from
>each constituency.
>
>F. Howard - Which is the WG A?
>
>[Answer: Dealing with Chapter 3 of the WIPO report, Dispute Resolution
>Policy]
>
>J. Sola - Do you [ccTLD Constituency] want anyone on the Working Group?
>
>Fay Howard - Yes
>
>J. Cohen - We have Willie Black
>
>J. Sola - [to J. Cohen] Will you take over administration of this working
>group?
>
>J. Cohen - Group A covers all the constituencies, heavy on the IPC, one
>outside expert.  The problem is that we're not very well represented outside
>of North America. (7 U.S., 1 Canada, 1 Europe.)  We could really use some
>members from South America and other regions.
>
>T. Harris - I can't do it yet, I'll try to get a name by Monday or Tuesday
>
>J. Cohen - I sent out an overview analysis of positions that have been taken
>and some questions that need to be answered or that ICANN wants answered.
>This needs to be done the right way.  I propose to split the group up
>according to the 4 questions I think need answering, these smaller groups
>should find interested parties from around the world, we need this to be
>broad-based.   I hope we can avoid seeing the same people as in the past.
>That's not what we've been asked to do.  We want to reach some kind of
>consensus with a new point of view.  I sent out a very broad email.
>
>[Michael Schneider and Amadeu Abril i Abril come on to the call]
>
>Anon - What are the 4 questions?
>
>[Milton Mueller writes to say that he asked this question, but Susan Anthony
>also recalls asking the question]
>
>J. Sola - No, we don't want to do that now, the working group can organize
>itself as it sees fit.
>
>A. Abril i Abril - If we divide a single question on dispute resolution we
>may end up with incoherent recommendations and this is a risk.
>
>J. Cohen - The questions are: (1) Should WIPO confine itself to
>cybersquatting activities (2) Should there be a uniform dispute resolution
>policy for all registries (3) Should there be a mandatory or voluntary
>arbitration process, and (4) Should there be access to courts.  It doesn't
>have to be a General Assembly or a DNSO, anyone can work on it.  I'm
>concerned about timing.  It's June 11, and we need something by July 3.
>Let's post it on the board and ask for general comments.  Small working
>groups can do anything they want.
>
>F. Howard - Let's use the DNSO Discussion List - it might get further
>around.
>
>E. Porteneuve - Another idea - Let's post the full questions and ask for
>comment to the DNSO.ORG server.
>
>J. Cohen - I'll ask V. Carrington to get that to you. You should send an
>email to Victoria Carrington if you're interested in joining one of these
>small groups.
>
>A. Abril i Abril - The question is how the working group is working.  Don't
>simply put out the questions or get comments.  It should be more active in
>seeking out comments from others, and drafting a proposal.
>
>J. Cohen - Absolutely.  This is our first opportunity to do something
>meaningful.  We should seek broad input, take a novel approach.   Then we
>can get together and discuss each other's conclusions.
>
>M. Mueller - Why does this have to be done by July 3?
>
>J. Cohen - ICANN has asked for it by July 3.
>
>J. Sola - If we want public comment, we need it done by that date
>
>J. Cohen - To get it done by then, we must begin right away
>
>A. Abril i Abril - We don't want everybody with any opinion on anything
>joining, we'll just have to start the whole long process over again.  We
>have most of the comments on the table
>
>J. Cohen - We must get moving, but we must be active.  The three or four
>people handling each question should decide how to handle it.
>
>[Operator announces that someone from the "Public Internet Press" is seeking
>to join the teleconference.  He or she is refused.]
>
>D. Maher - Airplane about to take off, want to say that I'm interested in
>joining WG A, and also the one concerning new gTLDs.
>
>[D. Maher leaves conversation]
>
>J. Sola - There needs to be a formal setting up of the WG.  Co-chairs shall
>be J. Cohen and A. Abril i Abril
>
>A. Abril i Abril - OK, since no-one else volunteers
>
>J. Cohen - That's fine with me.  If anyone thinks the questions should be
>changed, pipe up.
>
>A. Abril i Abril - The registrars feel this is very important, even if they
>don't understand all the complexities.
>
>J. Sola - We must formalize.  [Moves that J. Cohen and A. Abril i Abril be
>made co-chairs of the WG, and that the people already mentioned shall be on
>the WG, and to add David Maher and Luis Larramendi and a third person,
>Javier will have to get the name.]
>
>A. Van Couvering - Does the constitution of the WG now prevent others from
>joining later?
>
>J. Cohen - No, anyone can join, I encourage it.
>
>T. Harris - We need someone from the U.S./Canada
>
>J. Cohen - note to each WG that there needs to be at least one member from
>each constituency; if they're missing some, they should find people
>
>J. Sola - We must take a vote that WG Chairs can add people.  Do we want to
>create this working group, with these chairs, and rules for accepting new
>members?
>
>[Vote: In favor are J. Cohen, H. Hotta, J. Englund, T. Shapiro, J. Sola, M.
>Schneider.  No objections.]
>
>[Randy Bush writes to note that the motion included the list of members
>already read.]
>
>J. Sola - OK, WG is created. [List of members read]
>
>S. Anthony - How do we add new questions to the WG A?  We already have four
>questions, what if there's another question that needs to be added?
>
>J. Cohen (and A. Abril i Abril) - That's now a matter for the WG itself.
>
>J. Sola - WG A is now independent from the Names Council until July 3, 1999
>
>J. Sola - Let's talk about the calendar, because July 3 is just a date I
>picked arbitrarily
>
>J. Cohen - As quickly as possible send out email about which of the four
>questions you are interested in.  Then we'll divide the working groups
>immediately.  Let's give people 10 days, until the 22nd (Tuesday).  The WGs
>should get together and discuss by telephone where they are prior to July 3,
>then get together again and come to our own conclusions and post.
>
>R. Bush - Please post what you just said to the "mailto" - to the list of
>participants here.
>
>S. Anthony - I want to add a 5th question, maybe a 6th, to consider the
>actual mechanism for resolving disputes and to evaluate the specific
>recommendations in the WIPO report.
>
>J. Cohen - If there's a good 5th question, we'll add it
>
>J. Sola - Let's get back to the calendar.  We'll leave other WGs until the
>next NC meeting.  I would like to have an NC meeting at the INET meeting in
>San Jose, a closed meeting.
>
>A. Van Couvering - Would like to go on record that having closed meetings as
>a matter of course is a bad idea.  Will breed suspicion and paranoia.
>
>[Milton Mueller writes to note that he added a "hear, hear" to this]
>
>J. Englund - When should the NC be closed and when open?  Only in special
>circumstances should it be closed.  Favors open meetings unless there are
>good reasons not to.
>
>A. Abril i Abril - Teleconferences are expensive.  Therefore, economically
>speaking, it's inadvisable to have open meetings.
>
>A. Van Couvering - Aren't we forgetting that we're on the Internet?  Why
>don't we open a chat, for example with ICQ.  Then there's a complete record.
>Why a teleconference?
>
>R. Bush - Teleconferences give a more human quality to the proceedings
>
>[Randy Bush writes: "no.  i said that electronic conferences and email are
>misunderstanding
>amplifiers when the group is not already well-familiar with each other."]
>
>J. Cohen - Follow the ICANN model.  We should have face-to-face open and
>closed meetings.  Teleconferences we'll just judge on a case-by-case basis.
>
>J. Sola - INET in 15 days is a good opportunity for an open meeting and to
>create awareness.
>
>A. Van Couvering - That's not enough notice.
>
>J. Sola - We do have 14 days until the 25th.  We could have an open meeting
>and then a closed meeting to finish off the WGs.  Should we have an open and
>closed meeting at INET on June 24?
>
>J. Cohen - How many WG A people will be in San Jose?
>
>J. Englund - It should be indicated in the minutes that there were no policy
>issues discussed at this meeting
>
>Fay Howard - Should this be a matter for the DNSO?
>
>J. Sola - Propose an open meeting 4 - 6 pm on June 25 in San Jose.
>
>R. Bush - I can provide a conference bridge for a dozen or so people
>
>J. Sola - We'll have a closed meeting from 2 - 4, an open meeting 4 - 6
>
>A. Van Couvering - Why should there be a closed meeting at all?
>
>J. Sola - Let's vote [on closed 2-4, open 4-6].
>
>[Vote: In favor - J. Cohen, T. Shapiro, M. Schneider, T. Harris, S. Anthony,
>T. Swinehart.]
>
>J. Sola - That's a majority right there.
>
>[Randy Bush notes that Javier Sola asked for objections, and there were
>none.]
>
>J. Sola - We need three weeks of comment, then at the end of July the DNSO
>should send in their reports to the ICANN Board.  That's a bad time for a
>physical meeting, should we have a teleconference?
>
>J. Cohen - We can decide on that at the next meeting at INET.
>
>J. Sola - Let's talk about the Santiago meeting.
>
>T. Harris - I've been working with ICANN to set up the Santiago meeting.
>What's needed for the DNSO?
>
>J. Sola - We need a room for 50 - 100 people, with A/V stuff
>
>A. Abril i Abril - There should be constituency meetings, then General
>Assembly, followed by a Names Council meeting
>
>K. Stubbs - Ask the constituencies themselves what's needed
>
>J. Sola - We should take the preparation of this meeting off-line, and
>prepare an agenda
>
>[Joe Sims leaves]
>
>M. Schneider - We don't want to have all these meetings on the same day
>
>K. Stubbs - We could have the constituency meetings on the afternoon of
>August 23, that would give time for the others.
>
>M. Schneider - Agrees
>
>J. Cohen - By that time we should have a fully elected Names Council, and
>this will be the first time they meet, these people need 2 - 3 hours
>together before the meeting to get the ground rules together
>
>Fay Howard - Good plan
>
>Javier Sola - We should have a closed NC meeting on Aug 27
>
>A. Abril i Abril - Aug 26 would be better
>
>M. Schneider - Agrees
>
>K. Stubbs - Aug 27 will be difficult
>
>J. Sola - 26th in the afternoon then.  August 30 for WG B, C, and D reports.
>On the 18th of October we will be presenting final reports on WG B and C
>(famous marks and new gTLDs) and D (Business Plan of the DNSO) and E (Global
>Awareness).  The latter two are ours and don't go to ICANN.  B & C go to
>ICANN and we should present them as soon as possible after Santiago.
>In November we'll have other NC meetings.
>
>A. Van Couvering - Bad idea to have closed NC meetings as a matter of course
>
>J. Cohen - Agree with Antony
>
>A. Van Couvering - Keep the meetings open, you can always close it if
>someone gets disruptive.
>
>K. Stubbs - That way we can keep meetings open, I agree
>
>J. Sola - Sees a majority agreeing with this.  Open meetings with power to
>the Chair
>
>J. Cohen - We should have a rotating chair from constituency to
>constituency.  That's fair as well.
>
>M. Schneider - Who is the Chair at INET?
>
>J. Cohen - We can just start at the top of the list as drafted by ICANN
>
>M. Schneider - Would like to see Javier Sola as chair
>
>J. Cohen - OK with me.
>
>A. Abril i Abril - It would be a little difficult to use the ICANN list,
>since it begins with ccTLDs and they haven't chosen their members yet
>
>A. Van Couvering - It doesn't matter who's first, it's the principle that's
>important.
>
>J. Sola - We'll have open meetings unless there's disruption.  We can also
>throw out people without closing the meetings.
>
>K. Stubbs - Just ask everyone to follow decorum.
>
>A. Abril i Abril - July 5 is better for WG A, that way we can use the
>weekend
>
>J. Cohen - July 7 is better, because of the Fourth of July weekend in the
>U.S.
>
>T. Shapiro - National holidays shouldn't have, in principle, a bearing on
>these things
>
>R. Bush - We should allow meeting to be closed on personnel matters and
>such.  Having been through this, you should make that explicit
>
>J. Cohen - Although I'm for openness, I want the NC members to get to know
>each other
>
>J. Sola - How about a dinner on Aug 23 to meet each other
>
>M. Schneider - Let's finish this up
>
>J. Sola - The calendar is in decent shape, we need to create new working
>groups.  Constituencies and others should send in nominations for Working
>Groups B, C, and D by June 22
>
>A. Abril i Abril - What about the General Assembly.  Is the
>"discuss@dnso.org" list the same thing as the General Assembly?
>
>J. Sola - No, it should be "comments@dnso.org"
>
>A. Abril i Abril - But this is not a discussion list, it's a one-way list.
>
>J. Sola - But it will be just [names of two people] talking to each other
>
>A. Van Couvering - You could do something objective like limit people to 5
>posts per day.  That would help quite a bit
>
>J. Sola - We will put this on the agenda at INET
>
>R. Bush - In the IETF, we have an acceptable use policy, which says that
>behavior cannot disrupt.  You can make an ass of yourself, but you cannot
>disrupt.
>
>J. Sola - Congratulations to Elisabeth Porteneuve for putting together the
>DNSO.ORG website
>
>E. Porteneuve - There is structure, but we are missing content, for
>instance, about Working Group A.  That should be on the website.  Next week
>we will have it in place for each constituency to post their own content
>
>M. Mueller - Is June 22 the deadline for submitting names to WG A?  Who do
>we send email to when we want to join working groups?
>
>J. Sola - Will send out email.  J. Cohen is the focal point for WG B, J.
>Sola for C.  No-one for D & E.
>
>F. Howard - T. Swinehart agreed to be the focus point for E at the informal
>DNSO meeting [in Berlin].
>
>J. Sola - We can figure out the focal points for D & E on email.
>
>R. Bush - I'll comment on the non-com constituency, and I'll be brief.
>David Maher, Randy Bush and Kathy Kleiman can get together, not far apart.
>
>A. Van Couvering - Must go now.  Susan, can co-ordinate with you on notes,
>since I'm taking notes too.
>
>[A. Van Couvering leaves]
>
>A. Abril i Abril - Registrars are going through names of people for the NC.
>Many are still learning about the process, which is why we have fewer people
>in the WGs.  We are moving at reasonable speed.
>
>F. Howard - ccTLD constituency is forming a management council, getting
>approval, we're coming along
>
>[J. Sola asks for report from gTLD constituency.  There is silence on the
>line.  It was not known when D. Telage left the teleconference.]
>
>[Meeting ends.]
>