Philip Sheppard – chair

Caroline Chicoine

Paul Kane

Y J Park

Michael Schneider.

In the formulation of this report there have been contributions from Chuck Gomes and Roberto Gaetano.

Destination: this report is intended for discussion and adoption at the NC meeting 21 September 2000.

Implementation: the recommendations in this report are intended for implementation immediately after the NC meeting 21 September 2000 and will thus be in place for the NC meeting 19 October 2000.

The IC should be selected only from members of the Names Council. It should be small and flexible to facilitate meetings and discussion. It should be comprised of an odd number of NC members not greater than five. Members should be rotated from time to time.

The IC should not necessarily comprise representatives from each NC constituency for the following reasons:

• A situation where one constituency's important issue is proposed to the intake committee who reject it for no good reason and then that constituency says nothing more is highly unlikely. The ignored party would raise a point of order at the start of the NC meeting or lobby the NC chairman or post to the NC list.

• The danger of a "representative" intake committee is that it becomes a forum for substantive discussion and removes power from the NC. The key debating ground becomes the intake committee not the NC.

The question of widening the membership of the IC to positions such as chair of the GA should be addressed by the NC review committee.

An IC e-mail address shall be created (Intake suggestions) whereby any of the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items:

• members of the Names Council
• the Names Council secretariat

There will be a limit of one posting per day and the IC shall have sole discretion to deal with abusive activity. Intake suggestion e-mails for any meeting will be publicly archived after the end of the meeting in question.

The IC shall be responsible for:

• drafting and prioritising NC agendas
• combining agenda items with a common theme
• delaying or rejecting proposed items or passing them onto more appropriate bodies if they are not relevant NC issues.

In order for a topic to be discussed at a Names Council meeting, it must be presented to the IC no later than 21 days before the meeting.

The IC shall propose a guillotine (time limit) for each agenda item. IC members are encouraged to remind the chair of these limits during a meeting if necessary.

The IC shall send the agenda for a meeting no later than 14 days before the meeting to the NC secretariat and NC chair. The agenda may be changed at the discretion of the NC chair, who will make reference to the change in the new agenda. A final agenda will be posted by the Secretariat within one working day of receiving the IC agenda. The agenda will contain a hyperlink to the e-mail archive relevant to that meeting.

Where there is disagreement within the IC issues will be settled by a simple majority vote or referred to the NC at the discretion of the IC chair.

When there are items which have been rejected for agenda inclusion by the IC, NC members shall have 7 days to submit an objection which will count as a vote against the IC rejection. Non-votes will be deemed an acceptance of the IC’s decision, and a majority of the votes shall rule.

Last minute. In case of issues arising subsequent to the above timetable, NC members will be able to propose items for any other business at the start of an NC meeting. Such items will be accepted for discussion that day or deferred to the IC at the discretion of the NC chair.

No later than 7 days before the NC meeting, all reports or proposed declarations relating to forthcoming agenda items must be distributed to the NC.

The Intake Committee shall have the sole discretion to deviate from these procedures when externalities dictate.

The IC proposes the above recommendations, which are intentionally simple and flexible, be trialled for 3 months and then adopted. These recommendations have their origin in the detailed and prescriptive proposals made by the US-based Berkman Center for Internet and Society, for which diligence the NC offers its appreciation. Bearing in mind the more flexible modus operandi of the NC in the time since the Berkman proposals were made, the IC does not propose at this time that they are adopted as currently drafted.

Should there be deficiencies apparent during the period of trial then the IC will return to the detailed suggestions made by the Berkman Center to see which procedures may assist in overcoming such deficiencies. Always an objective will be the pragmatic, flexible, open, and efficient operation of the Names Council.