Meeting of the Names Council in San Jose on 25 June 1999

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

via telephone:

Jon Englund

Amadeu Abril i Abril

Ted Shapiro

Ken Stubbs (joined later)

Susan Anthony (joined later)

original agenda:

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

b2) Bootstrapping process for the DNSO

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

Other arguments ran counter the proposal:

Some conciliatory statements made:

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.

  1. 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.

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

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)

  1. 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.

  1. 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 24th and a GA/NC meeting after lunch the same day as well as a webcasted meeting of the NC on the 26th) (unanimous)

  1. 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