Official minutes from the Names Council Teleconference, June 11 1999

1. Formation of Working Group "A" (Dispute Resolution)

It was agreed that creation of the working group to address dispute resolution issues has the highest priority, since this working group (labeled as Working Group "A") needs to report its initial findings at the beginning of July so that there can be an open period of comment and a final report at the end of July. It also was observed that the Bylaws require participation in the working groups of at least one representative from each of the seven Constituencies.

The WG "A" (dispute resolution) was created, with Jonathan Cohen (FICPI, IP Constituency) and Amadeu Abril I Abril (Nominalia, Registrar Constituency) agreeing to serve as co-chairs. The initial list of members for WG "A" is as follows:

Jonathan Cohen (IPC)

Mark Partridge (IPC)

Susan Anthony (IPC)

Michael Heltzer (IPC)

Ted Shapiro (IPC)

Peter Dengate Thrush (IPC)

Randy Bush (NCC)

Kathy Kleiman (NCC)

David Maher (NCC)

Amadeu Abril i Abril (RC)

Ken Stubbs (RC)

Jon Englund (BCC)

Luis H. de Larramendi (BCC)

Hirofumi Hotta (ISPC)

Dr. Willie Black (ccTLDC)

Concern was expressed that the group be as geographically representative of the various regions as possible. Membership in WG A remains open to ensure that all Constituencies are represented and that the group is sufficiently geographically disparate and also to any outside experts that may be invited by the co-chairs. Jonathan Cohen proposed to split up WG A according to four questions that the ICANN Board likely would expect to be answered: (1) Should WIPO confine itself to cybersquatting activities; (2) Should there be a uniform dispute resolution policy for all registrars/registries; (3) Should there be a mandatory or voluntary arbitration process; and (4) Should there be access to courts. He also urged that a fresh approach to these questions be taken, rather than limiting work to comments previously made in the WIPO Process.

Amadeu Abril I Abril noted that we need to ensure against inconsistent recommendations among the various sub-groups. There was a discussion regarding how the questions could best be disseminated; suggestions were made to post the questions and ask for comments in the DNSO.ORG website. Anyone interested in joining one of the sub-groups in WG A was asked to send an e-mail to Vicky Carrington, who works with Jonathan Cohen, at scaf@idealaw.com, by June 22. Amadeu Abril I Abril also urged that the sub-groups actively seek out comments from others, rather than waiting for people to respond.

In order to meet the July 31 deadline for submitting recommendations on dispute policy to the ICANN Board, it was agreed that the sub-groups would need to make their initial findings by Wednesday, July 7. It also was agreed that each sub- group should be left to decide how best to solicit comments, formulate answers, etc. to meet the July 7 date. There will be a two-week period of public comment on these initial findings, to July 24. After that date, with the report and the public comments, the Council will prepare a report to be sent to the ICANN Board by the July 31 deadline.

Susan Anthony asked how to add questions, indicating that there are at least two additional questions, one relating to the actual mechanism for resolving disputes and one to evaluate the specific recommendations in the WIPO Report. Her question should be addressed by the Working Group, which is now considered independent from the Names Council until July 7. Consideration of arrangements for either a physical meeting or a conference call to prepare the report for the ICANN Board were deferred to the next meeting, June 25.

2. Formation of Other Working Groups (B,C,D,E)

Javier Sola stated that consideration of the formation of the other Working Groups — B (famous marks), C (additional gTLDs), D (DNSO business plan), E (global outreach and awareness) — should be deferred to the next Council meeting. He proposed a closed Names Council meeting at the INET ‘99 meeting in San Jose, California, USA. Antony Van Couvering stated that having closed meetings as a matter of course is inadvisable and Jon Englund stated that meetings should be closed only in special circumstances. Concern was expressed about the possible expense of open conference calls and Antony Van Couvering urged that greater use be made of the Internet, e.g., chats with ICQ. Randy Bush observed that electronic conferences and e-mail could foster misunderstandings where the group is not familiar to one another. A decision finally was reached that there would be a provisional face-to-face Names Council meeting on Friday, June 25, ensuring that the 14-day notice requirement would be met.

It also was decided after a majority vote that there would be a closed meeting from 2 to 4 on June 25 and an open meeting from 4 to 6. The purpose of the closed meeting would be to finish up formation of the various working groups. Subsequently, the decision was changed to make all meetings open, including both meetings on June 25, with the chair of any meeting having the ability to remove from the room (or telephone) any participants who are disruptive. It was further decided that meetings would only be closed as a last resort in the case of massive disruption.

Those interested in working on WG B (famous marks) need to send an e-mail to Jonathan Cohen by June 22 to scaf@idealaw.com; on WG C (new gTLDs) need to send an e-mail to Javier Sola by June 22 to javier@aui.es. Contacts for WGs D and E are to be announced at a later date. It was noted that Theresa Swinehart had agreed at the informal DNSO meeting in Berlin to sere as the focal point for the WG E on global awareness and outreach.

3. Santiago Meeting on August 24-27, 1999 and Calendar for Remainder of 1999

Physical arrangements for meetings of the Names Council and the DNSO General Assembly at the ICANN meeting in Santiago, Chile also were discussed. Amadeu Abril I Abril recommended that there be Constituency meetings, following by a General Assembly meeting, followed by a Names Council meeting. There was general agreement that the Constituency meetings be scheduled for the afternoon of Monday, August 23, with the General Assembly meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday, August 24, and a closed meeting of the Names Council on Thursday afternoon, August 26. The following people will work on details for the meetings in Santiago: Javier Sola, Tony Harris, and Michael Schneider.

August 30 will be the deadline for initial reports from WG B, C and D,E (following a 3-week public comment period). Final reports on WGs B and C will be presented on October 18, 1999. Reports from D and E working groups are internal to the DNSO and are not presented to ICANN. Other Names Council meetings will be scheduled for November. (The calendar has been posted at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/calendardnso.html.)

4. Various Constituency Reports

Randy Bush reported that the organizers of the Non- Commercial Constituency do not appear to be far apart and that they should be able to submit one application for recognition shortly.

Amadeu Abril I Abril reported that the Registrar Constituency has identified candidates for election to the Names Council. He indicated that many registrars are still learning about the ICANN/DNSO process but that matters in the Constituency are moving at a reasonable speed.

Fay Howard reported that the ccTLD Constituency is forming a management council, getting approval, and that it is "coming along".

A report was requested from Don Telage on the gTLD Constituency. There was silence on the line.

5. Other Administrative Matters

A question was raised whether the discuss@dnso.org list is the same as the DNSO General Assembly and, if so, how meaningful discussion could best be fostered, e.g., limiting people to 5 posts per day. This issue will be further discussed at the June 25 Names Council meeting in San Jose.