>From Antony Van Couvering:
Here are minutes of the Names Council Meeting which took place on June 11,
1999 via a teleconference hookup. These notes are a conflation of two sets
of notes, one taken taken by Susan Anthony, the other by Antony Van
Couvering. In the case of a clash, Susan's notes have ruled (there were a
couple of cases where we had people speaking in different order). I
stitched the notes together, and any errors must be mine. Please note that
these minutes are not verbatim, they are paraphrases of what was said.
Susan was the "official" notetaker of the event, and she has agreed to these
minutes, so they should be dubbed "official" as well. I also think they're
As a courtesy, the notes were passed on to the participants after I typed
them, to see if I made any mistakes. I received a few comments, and I have
indicated them in the text in brackets. In addition, I didn't send these to
David Maher or Tony Harris because I didn't have their email addresses,
although I asked that the other participants pass them along. I don't know
if they were passed along, because I received no comments from either of the
Participants (I don't think I missed anyone, but people were coming and
going, as well as being asked to leave or being denied entry. When this
happened, I have tried to note who and when).
On the Call:
Javier Sola (NC Member, Business Constituency)
Theresa Swinehart (NC Member, Business Constituency)
Jon Englund (NC Member, Business Constituency)
Jonathan Cohen (NC Member, IP Constituency)
Susan Anthony (NC Member, IP Constituency)
Ted Shapiro (NC Member, IP Constituency)
Horifumi Hota (NC Member, ISP Constituency)
Tony Harris (NC Member, ISP Constituency)
Michael Schneider (NC Member, ISP Constituency)
Randy Bush (As Observer, NC Constituency)
Michael Sondow (As Observer, NC Constituency)
David Maher (As Observer, NC Constituency)
Milton Mueller (As Observer, NC Constituency)
Ken Stubbs (As Observer, Registrar Constituency)
Amadeu Abril i Abril (As Observer, Registrar Constituency)
Don Telage (As Observer, gTLD Constituency)
Richard Sexton (As Observer, gTLD Constituency)
David Johnson (As Observer, gTLD Constituency)
Antony Van Couvering (As Observer, ccTLD Constituency)
Fay Howard (As Observer, ccTLD Constituency)
Elisabeth Porteneuve (As administrator of the DNSO.ORG website)
Joe Sims - ICANN's lawyer
Mike Roberts - CEO of ICANN
The conference call began at noon Eastern Standard Time, the notes begin
[Notes begin in medias res]
Javier Sola - There is only one position for the gTLD constituency
Don Telage - It says in the bylaws that the gTLD constituency should have 3
J. Sola - I have strict instructions from the ICANN board not to let you on
[Note: Although these are the words I wrote in my notes, Ken Stubbs wrote
that the "strict instructions" were not about Don Telage participating, but
about NSI having 3 participants on the call instead of one - and that makes
perfect sense, because Don Telage did stay on the call. Here's what Ken
"all appears substantially correct except i don't believe that javier ever
stated that he had instructions not to let don telage on the c/c. i believe
that he indicated that nsi was only allowed to have one person on and that
the others must go. it was my understanding that don remained on the call .
that would be consistant with don's comments after the others were
instructed to leave."
It should also be noted that as I had *just* arrived at this juncture, the
conversation as I heard it was out of context and therefore my notes also.
I encourage others who witnessed the entirety of the exchange to correct any
false impressions I may have given.
Milton Mueller writes to say that he remembers Javier Sola saying exactly
what I wrote, but Randy Bush writes to say that doesn't remember this, and
Susan Anthony agrees with Randy Bush.
In any case, Don Telage stayed on the call and Richard Sexton was cut off.]
[J. Sola asks operator to cut off Richard Sexton from teleconf. Also cut
off on Javier Sola's instructions near this time or shortly thereafter:
[Meeting called to order by Javier Sola]
J. Sola - I move that the meeting be closed.
[Operator interrupts: - V. Carrington seeks to come in. J. Sola instructs
operator that V. Carrington cannot be on the call.]
[Asks for vote. Voting in favor of closed meeting: T. Swinehart, T.
Shapiro, H. Hota, S. Anthony, J. Sola. Voting in favor of open meeting: J.
[J. Englund joins teleconf. Votes for closed meeting]
D. Telage - I want to go on record as saying this meeting is a sham.
[J. Sola asks that non-invited observers hang up]
F. Howard - I want to go on record as wanting this meeting to be open.
[Milton Mueller writes to say that he added a "Me too" at this point.]
D. Johnson - States that he is listed as an observer and asks if he can stay
J. Sola - No, doesn't think that's possible.
D. Johnson - My personal advice is that things would be much more productive
if everyone were invited to participate.
[D. Johnson hangs up] [Randy Bush writes to note that we don't know for
certain that he hung up.]
[S. Anthony volunteers to take notes]
J. Sola - Let's deal with the creation of Working Group A - Chapter 3 of the
WIPO report. A list of names is read out [AVC - see
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/calendardnso.html for a list of names]. We have to
create a working group A because it has to report at the beginning of July
so that we can have an open comment period at the end of July. Some from
F. Howard - Which is the WG A?
[Answer: Dealing with Chapter 3 of the WIPO report, Dispute Resolution
J. Sola - Do you [ccTLD Constituency] want anyone on the Working Group?
Fay Howard - Yes
J. Cohen - We have Willie Black
J. Sola - [to J. Cohen] Will you take over administration of this working
J. Cohen - Group A covers all the constituencies, heavy on the IPC, one
outside expert. The problem is that we're not very well represented outside
of North America. (7 U.S., 1 Canada, 1 Europe.) We could really use some
members from South America and other regions.
T. Harris - I can't do it yet, I'll try to get a name by Monday or Tuesday
J. Cohen - I sent out an overview analysis of positions that have been taken
and some questions that need to be answered or that ICANN wants answered.
This needs to be done the right way. I propose to split the group up
according to the 4 questions I think need answering, these smaller groups
should find interested parties from around the world, we need this to be
broad-based. I hope we can avoid seeing the same people as in the past.
That's not what we've been asked to do. We want to reach some kind of
consensus with a new point of view. I sent out a very broad email.
[Michael Schneider and Amadeu Abril i Abril come on to the call]
Anon - What are the 4 questions?
[Milton Mueller writes to say that he asked this question, but Susan Anthony
also recalls asking the question]
J. Sola - No, we don't want to do that now, the working group can organize
itself as it sees fit.
A. Abril i Abril - If we divide a single question on dispute resolution we
may end up with incoherent recommendations and this is a risk.
J. Cohen - The questions are: (1) Should WIPO confine itself to
cybersquatting activities (2) Should there be a uniform dispute resolution
policy for all registries (3) Should there be a mandatory or voluntary
arbitration process, and (4) Should there be access to courts. It doesn't
have to be a General Assembly or a DNSO, anyone can work on it. I'm
concerned about timing. It's June 11, and we need something by July 3.
Let's post it on the board and ask for general comments. Small working
groups can do anything they want.
F. Howard - Let's use the DNSO Discussion List - it might get further
E. Porteneuve - Another idea - Let's post the full questions and ask for
comment to the DNSO.ORG server.
J. Cohen - I'll ask V. Carrington to get that to you. You should send an
email to Victoria Carrington if you're interested in joining one of these
A. Abril i Abril - The question is how the working group is working. Don't
simply put out the questions or get comments. It should be more active in
seeking out comments from others, and drafting a proposal.
J. Cohen - Absolutely. This is our first opportunity to do something
meaningful. We should seek broad input, take a novel approach. Then we
can get together and discuss each other's conclusions.
M. Mueller - Why does this have to be done by July 3?
J. Cohen - ICANN has asked for it by July 3.
J. Sola - If we want public comment, we need it done by that date
J. Cohen - To get it done by then, we must begin right away
A. Abril i Abril - We don't want everybody with any opinion on anything
joining, we'll just have to start the whole long process over again. We
have most of the comments on the table
J. Cohen - We must get moving, but we must be active. The three or four
people handling each question should decide how to handle it.
[Operator announces that someone from the "Public Internet Press" is seeking
to join the teleconference. He or she is refused.]
D. Maher - Airplane about to take off, want to say that I'm interested in
joining WG A, and also the one concerning new gTLDs.
[D. Maher leaves conversation]
J. Sola - There needs to be a formal setting up of the WG. Co-chairs shall
be J. Cohen and A. Abril i Abril
A. Abril i Abril - OK, since no-one else volunteers
J. Cohen - That's fine with me. If anyone thinks the questions should be
changed, pipe up.
A. Abril i Abril - The registrars feel this is very important, even if they
don't understand all the complexities.
J. Sola - We must formalize. [Moves that J. Cohen and A. Abril i Abril be
made co-chairs of the WG, and that the people already mentioned shall be on
the WG, and to add David Maher and Luis Larramendi and a third person,
Javier will have to get the name.]
A. Van Couvering - Does the constitution of the WG now prevent others from
J. Cohen - No, anyone can join, I encourage it.
T. Harris - We need someone from the U.S./Canada
J. Cohen - note to each WG that there needs to be at least one member from
each constituency; if they're missing some, they should find people
J. Sola - We must take a vote that WG Chairs can add people. Do we want to
create this working group, with these chairs, and rules for accepting new
[Vote: In favor are J. Cohen, H. Hotta, J. Englund, T. Shapiro, J. Sola, M.
Schneider. No objections.]
[Randy Bush writes to note that the motion included the list of members
J. Sola - OK, WG is created. [List of members read]
S. Anthony - How do we add new questions to the WG A? We already have four
questions, what if there's another question that needs to be added?
J. Cohen (and A. Abril i Abril) - That's now a matter for the WG itself.
J. Sola - WG A is now independent from the Names Council until July 3, 1999
J. Sola - Let's talk about the calendar, because July 3 is just a date I
J. Cohen - As quickly as possible send out email about which of the four
questions you are interested in. Then we'll divide the working groups
immediately. Let's give people 10 days, until the 22nd (Tuesday). The WGs
should get together and discuss by telephone where they are prior to July 3,
then get together again and come to our own conclusions and post.
R. Bush - Please post what you just said to the "mailto" - to the list of
S. Anthony - I want to add a 5th question, maybe a 6th, to consider the
actual mechanism for resolving disputes and to evaluate the specific
recommendations in the WIPO report.
J. Cohen - If there's a good 5th question, we'll add it
J. Sola - Let's get back to the calendar. We'll leave other WGs until the
next NC meeting. I would like to have an NC meeting at the INET meeting in
San Jose, a closed meeting.
A. Van Couvering - Would like to go on record that having closed meetings as
a matter of course is a bad idea. Will breed suspicion and paranoia.
[Milton Mueller writes to note that he added a "hear, hear" to this]
J. Englund - When should the NC be closed and when open? Only in special
circumstances should it be closed. Favors open meetings unless there are
good reasons not to.
A. Abril i Abril - Teleconferences are expensive. Therefore, economically
speaking, it's inadvisable to have open meetings.
A. Van Couvering - Aren't we forgetting that we're on the Internet? Why
don't we open a chat, for example with ICQ. Then there's a complete record.
Why a teleconference?
R. Bush - Teleconferences give a more human quality to the proceedings
[Randy Bush writes: "no. i said that electronic conferences and email are
amplifiers when the group is not already well-familiar with each other."]
J. Cohen - Follow the ICANN model. We should have face-to-face open and
closed meetings. Teleconferences we'll just judge on a case-by-case basis.
J. Sola - INET in 15 days is a good opportunity for an open meeting and to
A. Van Couvering - That's not enough notice.
J. Sola - We do have 14 days until the 25th. We could have an open meeting
and then a closed meeting to finish off the WGs. Should we have an open and
closed meeting at INET on June 24?
J. Cohen - How many WG A people will be in San Jose?
J. Englund - It should be indicated in the minutes that there were no policy
issues discussed at this meeting
Fay Howard - Should this be a matter for the DNSO?
J. Sola - Propose an open meeting 4 - 6 pm on June 25 in San Jose.
R. Bush - I can provide a conference bridge for a dozen or so people
J. Sola - We'll have a closed meeting from 2 - 4, an open meeting 4 - 6
A. Van Couvering - Why should there be a closed meeting at all?
J. Sola - Let's vote [on closed 2-4, open 4-6].
[Vote: In favor - J. Cohen, T. Shapiro, M. Schneider, T. Harris, S. Anthony,
J. Sola - That's a majority right there.
[Randy Bush notes that Javier Sola asked for objections, and there were
J. Sola - We need three weeks of comment, then at the end of July the DNSO
should send in their reports to the ICANN Board. That's a bad time for a
physical meeting, should we have a teleconference?
J. Cohen - We can decide on that at the next meeting at INET.
J. Sola - Let's talk about the Santiago meeting.
T. Harris - I've been working with ICANN to set up the Santiago meeting.
What's needed for the DNSO?
J. Sola - We need a room for 50 - 100 people, with A/V stuff
A. Abril i Abril - There should be constituency meetings, then General
Assembly, followed by a Names Council meeting
K. Stubbs - Ask the constituencies themselves what's needed
J. Sola - We should take the preparation of this meeting off-line, and
prepare an agenda
[Joe Sims leaves]
M. Schneider - We don't want to have all these meetings on the same day
K. Stubbs - We could have the constituency meetings on the afternoon of
August 23, that would give time for the others.
M. Schneider - Agrees
J. Cohen - By that time we should have a fully elected Names Council, and
this will be the first time they meet, these people need 2 - 3 hours
together before the meeting to get the ground rules together
Fay Howard - Good plan
Javier Sola - We should have a closed NC meeting on Aug 27
A. Abril i Abril - Aug 26 would be better
M. Schneider - Agrees
K. Stubbs - Aug 27 will be difficult
J. Sola - 26th in the afternoon then. August 30 for WG B, C, and D reports.
On the 18th of October we will be presenting final reports on WG B and C
(famous marks and new gTLDs) and D (Business Plan of the DNSO) and E (Global
Awareness). The latter two are ours and don't go to ICANN. B & C go to
ICANN and we should present them as soon as possible after Santiago.
In November we'll have other NC meetings.
A. Van Couvering - Bad idea to have closed NC meetings as a matter of course
J. Cohen - Agree with Antony
A. Van Couvering - Keep the meetings open, you can always close it if
someone gets disruptive.
K. Stubbs - That way we can keep meetings open, I agree
J. Sola - Sees a majority agreeing with this. Open meetings with power to
J. Cohen - We should have a rotating chair from constituency to
constituency. That's fair as well.
M. Schneider - Who is the Chair at INET?
J. Cohen - We can just start at the top of the list as drafted by ICANN
M. Schneider - Would like to see Javier Sola as chair
J. Cohen - OK with me.
A. Abril i Abril - It would be a little difficult to use the ICANN list,
since it begins with ccTLDs and they haven't chosen their members yet
A. Van Couvering - It doesn't matter who's first, it's the principle that's
J. Sola - We'll have open meetings unless there's disruption. We can also
throw out people without closing the meetings.
K. Stubbs - Just ask everyone to follow decorum.
A. Abril i Abril - July 5 is better for WG A, that way we can use the
J. Cohen - July 7 is better, because of the Fourth of July weekend in the
T. Shapiro - National holidays shouldn't have, in principle, a bearing on
R. Bush - We should allow meeting to be closed on personnel matters and
such. Having been through this, you should make that explicit
J. Cohen - Although I'm for openness, I want the NC members to get to know
J. Sola - How about a dinner on Aug 23 to meet each other
M. Schneider - Let's finish this up
J. Sola - The calendar is in decent shape, we need to create new working
groups. Constituencies and others should send in nominations for Working
Groups B, C, and D by June 22
A. Abril i Abril - What about the General Assembly. Is the
"email@example.com" list the same thing as the General Assembly?
J. Sola - No, it should be "firstname.lastname@example.org"
A. Abril i Abril - But this is not a discussion list, it's a one-way list.
J. Sola - But it will be just [names of two people] talking to each other
A. Van Couvering - You could do something objective like limit people to 5
posts per day. That would help quite a bit
J. Sola - We will put this on the agenda at INET
R. Bush - In the IETF, we have an acceptable use policy, which says that
behavior cannot disrupt. You can make an ass of yourself, but you cannot
J. Sola - Congratulations to Elisabeth Porteneuve for putting together the
E. Porteneuve - There is structure, but we are missing content, for
instance, about Working Group A. That should be on the website. Next week
we will have it in place for each constituency to post their own content
M. Mueller - Is June 22 the deadline for submitting names to WG A? Who do
we send email to when we want to join working groups?
J. Sola - Will send out email. J. Cohen is the focal point for WG B, J.
Sola for C. No-one for D & E.
F. Howard - T. Swinehart agreed to be the focus point for E at the informal
DNSO meeting [in Berlin].
J. Sola - We can figure out the focal points for D & E on email.
R. Bush - I'll comment on the non-com constituency, and I'll be brief.
David Maher, Randy Bush and Kathy Kleiman can get together, not far apart.
A. Van Couvering - Must go now. Susan, can co-ordinate with you on notes,
since I'm taking notes too.
[A. Van Couvering leaves]
A. Abril i Abril - Registrars are going through names of people for the NC.
Many are still learning about the process, which is why we have fewer people
in the WGs. We are moving at reasonable speed.
F. Howard - ccTLD constituency is forming a management council, getting
approval, we're coming along
[J. Sola asks for report from gTLD constituency. There is silence on the
line. It was not known when D. Telage left the teleconference.]