Minutes of the administrative meeting of the Names Council on 25 June 1999

from 2:07pm to 4:45 pm

Michael Schneider

Richard Lindsay

Nii Quaynon

Hirofumi Hotta

Theresa Swinehard

Javier Sola

Fay Howard

Jonathan Cohen

Bill Semich

Randy Bush

Jon Englund

Amadeu Abril i Abril

Ted Shapiro

Ken Stubbs (joined later)

Susan Anthony (joined later)

1. meeting etiquette
2. review and approval of agenda
3. review of calendar
4. discussion of WG operation criteria
5. creation of WG B
6. Creation of WG C
7. Progress report WG A
8. Proposal from Ted Shapiro
9. Discuss time frame for creation of WG D
10. Discuss time frame for creation of WG E

1. Etiquette Michael Schneider opened the meeting. He asked for silence so that the Council members participating via telephone would have a chance of understanding what was being discussed.

2. The agenda was read out, several amendments tabled.

• Fay Howard proposed to first lay down some sort of procedure for decision making, workgroup formation etc. before actually starting to work to ensure some sort of consistency and openness.
• Amadeu Abril proposed to add an item on the General Assembly and whether the discuss-list should be the non-physical representation of the GA.
• It was decided to discuss Fay’s suggestion before d), move g) before e), discuss Amadeu’s item before e), postpone c) for later and drop h).

b2) Bootstrapping process for the DNSO

On the one hand, there were arguments in favour of the proposal:

• The bylaws were said to demand the creation of a process to create WGs, not the actual creation until such a process were final
• Management of a consensus process was said to be the Names Council’s foremost responsibility; as such, a bottom-up process was required, ensuring each constituency was represented on each WG and that the WGs be proposed by the General Assembly once the latter was in place.
• To create this „real" GA, more public presence would be necessary; the 60 subscribers to the discuss-list representing less than half of the number present at the Berlin-meeting, to get larger numbers, the discuss-list would have to be advertised as the GA’s channel of communication.

Other arguments ran counter the proposal:

• The current WGs were proposed by the constituencies at the open meeting in Berlin, no objections voiced.
• To make substantial progress, work needs to be started now
• There are currently no volunteers for WGs D and E
• The WGs are already open, respectively some restriction to participants per company and the need of some sort of fast-track procedure
• the WGs don’t always have the last word; possibly the NC should have the disgression to take the set-up and or consensus-reaching process of the individual WG into account regarding the proposals made.

Some conciliatory statements made:

• It should suffice to put greater emphasis on the WGs D + E with common sense guiding the limitations to avoid postponing progress for too long while ensuring inclusiveness; the deadlines given by ICANN are not helpful in any respect as they are too tight and not enough pro-active participation is taking place.
• Outreach: more should be done to let interested parties know the DNSO is there and open to all

It was then decided to take decisions on Amadeu’s proposal first as it concerns the GA:

1. It should be announced that the GA exists and is recognised according to the bylaws (unanimously accepted)
2. the discuss@dnso.org list is regarded to be the GA of the DNSO (unanimously accepted)
3. the announce@dnso.org list is used to broadcast all information of the NC (12:1 - Bill Semich against)
4. each constituency has 7 days to announce a proposal on how to proceed in the creation of WGs (postponed until WG E is created)

Concerning Fay’s proposal, it was unanimously decided to create a team to draft rules for the formation and management of WGs: Amadeu Abril i Abril, Jonathan Cohen, Bill Semich; the first draft shall be circulated within three weeks.

7. report on the WG A: according to Jonathan Cohen, the WG A has not been productive or effective. The 4 questions originally posted with the request for members to form teams for the separate questions barely received feedback (if at all, then mostly from Americans), few positions were put forward, barely any diversity visible.

Jonathan reported that he has asked ICANN for an extension of the deadlines given to avoid being criticised for rushing through the consensus-finding process; the request appears to have been accepted, extension given until the ICANN-meeting in Los Angeles in November.

Jonathan voiced the opinion that the WG A will not accomplish its task. He asked the NC to support his request to ICANN; a unanimous decision was taken to decide this after the written form of the request has been circulated. Criticism was voiced that there was no way for a small workgroup with little resources and barely any time to improve the WIPO recommendations anyhow.

5. WG C: A proposal was made to create the WG with the current applicants (always open for additional members) according to Javier’s document.

• the creation of further WGs should be postponed until the draft on their formation and management is done.
• the charter in Javier’s document was considered incomplete
• On the other hand, the formation of WGs should not be postponed any longer - delay would ensue otherwise because the three weeks for public comment and the final NC decision necessary take time
• once the draft is ready, existing WGs would have to comply with it even if it meant restructuring

It was motioned to postpone the decision on the creation of WG C, the motion failed by 6:7

It was voted to create the WG as proposed by Javier (with the addition of having to comply with the future document on WG formation and management), a positive decision 8:3:3 taken (Fay and Bill against)

6. WG B vote: creation on the same basis as WG C (12:2 - Fay and Bill against)

i/j) timeframe for the creation of WGs D and E: postponed until the next meeting, though "committees" are to begin the relevant discussions (12:2 in favour, Fay and Bill against), an outline drafted and voted on by that point in time

Richard and Ken volunteered for WG E, Fay will recirculate the Berlin-list of volunteers on the list, the rest of the discussion to take place there.

3. calendar: 12 July: cc for the committees (all conference calls are webcasted and backed up through email)

vote: postpone further decisions on dates (except 2 meetings during the ICANN-meeting in Santiago, a constituency meeting in the morning of the 24^th and a GA/NC meeting after lunch the same day as well as a webcasted meeting of the NC on the 26^th) (unanimous)

11. Email-feedback: to Richard Sexton: Chris Ambler took back the complaint, others had been included in a WG and he not

to Mr. Walsh: an Email by Michael Schneider is going out early next week giving the period for applications to join the ISPCP

to R. Langston: ICANN decides on the constituencies of each supporting organisation, not the SO itself