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

from 4:55pm to 6:05pm

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)

original agenda:

1. review and approval of agenda
2. discussion of dispute resolution policy / identification of issues that should be addressed by WG A
3. discussion of issues for WG B / identification of issues that should be addressed by WG B
4. discussion of issues for WG C / identification of issues that should be addressed by WG C
5. input to points discussed in the administrative meeting

As a result from the decisions taken in the administrative meeting it was decided to focus on agenda item e).

• a not fully formed / interim NC can’t handle ICANN requests to make policy

A: it only makes recommendations!

• currently individuals can’t participate if they aren’t nominated by a constituency

A: true for the Names Council, not however for the GA and the WGs

A: it is ICANN that recognises the constituencies, anyone is welcome to form a constituency and seek ICANN approval

• The NC should support those further constituencies

A: the NC doesn’t necessarily have much influence on those decisions but can try anyhow

A: individuals elect half of the ICANN-Board

A: The DNSO is to provide expert input/advice to the ICANN-Board

A: though new ideas and thoughts are important, it is almost impossible to include them all given the time constraints

• the NC should wait for the "missing" constituencies to be formed and recognised if it wants to be open and fair

A: the process will always be imperfect

• the NC should complain to ICANN
• the NC should wait with the WGs until the WG-draft is produced and adopted ("lay the foundation before building the house")

A: What are the "foundations"? NC is just fabricating the "windows"

A: results are yet tentative, the GA is asked for comments anyhow

A: all impacts are considered (e.g. the competition for ".com" on ccTLDs)

• should include IETF as a basis for the WG-draft (though also slightly flawed)

A: the NC may not be "done", but it is open, transparent and inclusive

• open is not enough, clear statements to inform those interested of what they are signing up to are needed
• time pressure is a real concern as it does not acknowledge the "normal" user’s confusion