Re: [discuss] Next Names Council Meeting

[Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

> From owner-discuss@dnso.org Sat Jun 12 18:43:00 1999
> From: "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>
> To: "IATLD Members list" <members@IATLD.ORG>
> Cc: "Domain Policy Lists" <domain-policy@lists.internic.net>,
>         "DNSO Mail List" <discuss@dnso.org>
> Subject: [discuss] Next Names Council Meeting
> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:14:21 -0400
> Message-ID: <000b01beb4ee$a12dc4e0$85f526cf@AVCLaptop.interport.net>
> Sender: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Although the Names Council has followed the letter of the law and posted an
> announcement of the next Names Council meeting (see
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/calendardnso.html, quite a ways down the page), it
> seems to me that the announcement of these important meetings deserves a
> wider dissemination.  I would have hoped that the Names Council would have
> seen fit to announce their activities via the announce@dnso.org vehicle as
> well.

==> Antony,

    Your message arrived to the discuss@dnso.org list exactly
    41 minutes later:
    > From owner-discuss@dnso.org Sat Jun 12 18:43:00 1999
    than the announcement sent to the announce@dnso.org:
    > From owner-announce@dnso.org Sat Jun 12 18:01:40 1999

    It is indeed important to have information about the Names
    Council activities widely dissiminated, and I am trying to
    do my work as well as possible.

    Elisabeth Porteneuve
    DNSO Secretariat, observer to the NC teleconference
> 
> In any case, there will be a Names Council meeting on June 25 in San Jose.
> It will be partly face-to-face, but teleconference participation will be
> available as well.  As you can see, it's divided into a "meeting" and a
> "public meeting", which would seem to indicate that the first one was
> closed, and the second one open.  I'm not sure that this is the case,
> however - given the general feeling of Names Council members at the last
> teleconference (at which I was an observer for the ccTLD constituency) that
> meeting should be open unless there was a good reason not to.  So it may be
> that the earlier meeting is open in the sense that anyone can observe, but
> say nothing, while the later meeting is meant to be an open-participation
> meeting.  You may want want to contact a Names Council member to find out
> exact details on procedure.
> 
> I just thought everyone should know this is happening.
> 
> Antony
> 
>