DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 26th February 2001 - Minutes

Revised version 3.1 (March 4th, 2001)

Proposed agenda and related documents:


List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD
Philip Sheppard        Business
Theresa Swinehart      Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Hirofumi Hotta         ISPCP absent (apology, proxy to M. Schneider)
Tony Harris            ISPCP
Michael Schneider      ISPCP
Erica Roberts          Registrars
Ken Stubbs             Registrars absent (apology, proxy to P. Kane)
Paul Kane              Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Caroline Chicoine      IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen    IP
Guillermo Carey        IP absent (apology, proxy to C. Chicoine)
Milton Mueller         NCDNH left call at 23:00
Youn Jung Park         NCDNH
Vany Martinez          NCDNH joined later
Louis Touton           ICANN staff
Maca Jamin             Scribe

Quorum present at 22:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00 during the winter in the North hemisphere)

Opening of the Meeting

Ph. Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference, and welcomed newly elected NC members: Grant Forsyth (BC), Vany Martinez and Milton Mueller (NCDNH).

Agenda item 0: Approval of the Agenda

L. Touton asked a preliminary question on the proxies received and the consistency with the NC rules

Ph. Sheppard confirmed that the process was compliant to the rules and informed that three proxies were received:

Hirofumi Hotta gave his proxy to Michael Schneider, Ken Stubbs to Paul Kane and Guillermo Carey to Caroline Chicoine.

Agenda: One item was added to the agenda under A.O.B

13.1 NC dinner in Melbourne.

The agenda was approved.

Agenda item 1: Approval of Minutes of 24th January and 8th February 2001

24th January http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010124.NCtelecon-minutes.html

As requested by Y.J. Park the following wording of Decision D6 was changed


Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent her apologies and asked to withdraw this last observation.


Subsequent to the meeting Y.J. Park has sent apologies as to personal comments made and has asked they be withdrawn.

Decision D1: The minutes of January 24th Meeting, including the above amendment, were approved by 13 votes in favour, no votes against and 3 abstentions

(M. Schneider - not present at that meeting, M. Mueller and G. Forsyth - not members of the NC at the time)

8th February http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010208.NCtelecon-minutes.html

Ph. Sheppard raised a question related to the decision D2, taken by the NC at the February 8th meeting:

"It was agreed that Th. Swinehart with Y.J. Park and the NC Chair would draft a communication to the WG to confirm the present timetable and that WG Review input NOT received by the DNSO by Feb 11 would form a part of the ICANN public comment period and that would complete the work of WG Review. "

A draft was prepared by Th. Swinehart and Ph. Sheppard but not accepted by Y.J. Park. A holding message was sent to the WG Review. He suggested and, in consistency with the NC decision, to communicate this decision immediately to the members of the WG Review.

Th. Swinehart agreed and stressed that the language of the draft was consistent with the NC decision.

Y.J. Park suggested incorporating WGR comments.

E. Roberts noted that as liaison Chair of the WGR, YJ is responsible for communicating to the WGR the decision of the NC.

C. Chicoine invited the group to move forward, if it is a question of semantics, and circulate a text to the NC members by e-mail asking for NC approval.

Subsequent to the meeting Ph. Shepard sent a text to all NC members, which was approved by the majority of the NC within the deadline (annex 1).

Y.J. Park expressed her concern about the future of the Review Process Task Force

Ph. Sheppard recalled the NC decision on the submission of the report to ICANN and the ending of this Review Task Force activity dedicated to a production of the later. A new task forces or other groups will be formed to lead the implementation process.

Motion to approve the Minutes of February 8th meeting was moved by C. Chicoine (seconded by E Roberts):

Decision D2: The Minutes of February 8th meeting were approved by 13 votes in favour, no votes against and 3 abstentions (M. Schneider -not present at that meeting, M. Mueller and G. Forsyth - not members of the NC at the time).

Agenda item 2: Consolidating existing NC procedures into one document - NC Rules of Procedure

DECISION TO approve NC Rules of Procedure http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html

Ph. Sheppard presented a document (annex 2) sent in advance; a consolidation of different decisions the NC has taken over a number of months relating to NC processes and procedures. The aim is to consolidate in a single document agreed NC processes and procedures. The document contains minor editorial changes for clarity and is consistent with the decisions taken by the NC.

E. Roberts congratulated Philip for this initiative and agreed the need to consolidate in a single document decisions made by the NC regarding its operations.

L. Touton inquired about the expiration of the trial period of procedures previously agreed.

Ph. Sheppard informed that all trial periods have expired

P. Kane recalled procedures on proxies to be included in a text.

M. Mueller asked whether the group has considered rotating the NC Chair position among constituencies .M. Schneider noted that rotation of the NC Chair had been trialled earlier but had not proved satisfactory. He also pointed out that a significant workload attaches to the position of NC Chair and voiced concern that a past Chair should be ineligible to serve again for a period of 12 months

C. Chicoine noted that there exists a list of past chairs. She underlined her understanding of M. Schneider’s concern, especially related to a difficulty in even meeting NC member commitments during a2-year term the representatives are elected for.

E. Porteneuve offered to send information, statistics available, as an indication of the past chairs.

E. Roberts noted that any change to rules governing eligibility to serve as NC Chair involved a significant change. NC members should be given notice of any proposal to make such a change so that they could consult with their constituencies before coming to a decision.

P.Shepard agreed and invited NC members to advise the Intake Committee of any proposals relating to the tenure or eligibility of the NC Chair so that this matter could be considered at a future meeting.

L.Touton proposed the following:

"The trials of the proxy and Intake Committee Procedures are deemed satisfactory and the attached http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html is recognized as an accurate restatement of the Names Council's Procedures, subject to revision by future Names Council action."

Decision D3: The motion, moved by E. Roberts (seconded by P. de Blanc), was accepted by 16 votes in favour no votes against and one abstention (M. Mueller).

Agenda item 3: Procedure regarding prolonged absences of constituency representatives from NC meetings

E. Porteneuve briefly explained the problems encountered:

- Elections and replacement of representatives,

- Long absence from the meetings without notice.

The problem is twofold: the workload cannot be shared fairly among NC members and constituencies are not properly represented or informed.

Th. Swinehart recalled that this question was raised within the DNSO Review Process

Steps to be taken to inform the constituencies of prolonged absences by constituency representatives were discussed.

The following was decided as an addition to the NC rules of procedures:

Decision D4: When a names council member fails to participate in two regular consecutive NC meetings without notification of absence to the DNSO secretariat or NC chair or Council list, the DNSO secretariat will notify the constituency and ask for a response.

At this point M. Mueller indicated he had to leave the meeting shortly and requested taking agenda item 7 before item 5. This was agreed.

Agenda item 7: Non-commercial constituency - results and implications of the Constituency vote on four resolutions made at the Constituency's Marina del Rey meeting.

Ph. Sheppard recalled that this item was put on the agenda as requested by D. Vandromme who is no longer an NC member.

Y.J. Park thought that this was raised to show decisions made by non-commercial constituency, aimed at finding out about the decision process in place within other constituencies

M. Mueller noted that there had been questions raised about the legitimacy of the process for these decisions. M. Mueller pointed out that the resolutions had been posted on-line 5 weeks prior to the Marina del Rey meeting, discussed online, discussed at the constituency meeting, and passed by majority vote at the meeting and later ratified by a full vote of the membership online and that he believed the purpose of the agenda item was to state to the NC that the process had indeed been legitimate.

M. Mueller left the meeting at 22:55

Ph. Sheppard asked participants to avoid putting on the NC agenda internal constituency issues.

Agenda item 4: Melbourne Meeting Agenda

Ph. Sheppard recalled that the Melbourne meeting is a public meeting. He proposed that the main item on the agenda would be the DNSO Business Plan and presentations will be made on its components. The Business Plan objectives had been posted to constituencies and a good feedback received. A new draft incorporating this feedback and adding strategies will be circulated in a few days to the NC.

C. Chicoine informed the Committee that, as she is not going to attend Melbourne meeting, she will be posting her comments prior to the meeting.

Y.J. Park inquired about the membership of the Task force.

Ph. Sheppard replied: G. Carey, E. Roberts, P. de Blanc, H. Hotta, R. Cochetti, D. Vandromme and Ph. Sheppard.

Y.J. Park said that due to the D. Vandromme leaving the NC she would like to replace him as a member of the Business Plan Task Force.

Ph. Sheppard asked her to consult with her the constituency reps and inform the NC of the replacement for D. Vandromme.

E. Roberts agreed that the Business Plan should be the main agenda item but sought confirmation that the agenda should also include an item on the budget R. Cochetti advised that the Budget Committee would be prepared to provide a progress report a progress report on fund raising, on professional support and enforcement of constituency dues.

P. Kane asked the NC members to submit as soon as possible any other issue they would like to see on the agenda of the Melbourne meeting.

C. Chicoine inquired on further developments of WHOIS report.

P. Kane informed that we are awaiting ICANN report. As to the NC task force to be formed, the ISP Constituency and Registrars have not designated their representative yet and are kindly asked to do so.

Agenda item 5: DECISION of NC to invite the GA to manage an election process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the position of Chair of the GA

E. Porteneuve described the previous process and confirmed that the previous practice of the NC, in order to comply with the by-laws, was to ask the GA to propose nominations to the NC for approval.

E. Roberts reminded NC members that at its meeting in LA the NC had indicated it would be guided by the GA in appointing a new GA Chair. She also noted that the previous Chairs had indicated their intention to resign and expressed concern that there may be no GA Chair for the upcoming meeting in Melbourne.

E. Porteneuve reassured the participants that R. Gaetano would remain as chair until after the Melbourne meeting.

E. Roberts suggested that the NC invite the GA to nominate a person and that a clear description of a process used to select the nominee be communicated.

E. Porteneuve informed that the DNSO Secretariat initiated the process in the past and she proposed to manage it again this time.

L. Touton recalled that there was a procedure in place used for the last election: nomination of a candidate by GA, endorsement by 10 members required, all candidates endorsed (there were 2) presented to the NC for election. On that occasion, the NC elected one of the presented candidates as GA Chair and one as Alternate Chair.

E. Porteneuve inquired if the previous procedures should be followed:

- Call for nominations,

- Call for endorsements,

- Election by the NC.

Decision D5: Ph. Sheppard proposed to proceed as last year, without changing the Bylaws: E. Porteneuve will send an e-mail to GA mailing list and move the process forward.

This was unanimously approved with no votes against and no abstentions.

Subsequent to the meeting E. Porteneuve has drafted a document and posted on a DNSO site: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html

Agenda item 6: New TLDs

o Update on negotiations on new TLDs and explanation of means of charter enforcement

L. Touton recalled the ICANN Board decision allowing General Counsel and ICANN CEO to carry on negotiations with the applicants chosen at November meeting in LA. Due to the limited ICANN resources and a time consuming process, the current negotiations focused on four applicants for non-sponsored TLDs Negotiations. It now appears that regarding the basic agreement document will be completed in 24 hours and the achieved agreements posted. There is a uniform agreement, restrictions being specified in appendices. Most of the appendices will also be posted before the Melbourne meeting. Discussions on sponsored/chartered TLDs are still in a preliminary phase. Agreement structure is different and it is not certain that they will be posted before Melbourne.

Ph. Sheppard questioned about the earliest and the latest possible launching dates.

L.Touton admitted that it is difficult to give a satisfactory answer, as all four non -sponsored will proceed by several stages:

- Public announcement, expected as early as May time frame,

- Setting up a registry service, at the latest in summer.

C. Chicoine inquired if the purpose of publishing reports is only for information or is it also intended for public comment process.

L. Touton responded that public discussions would be possible during public forum meeting in Melbourne and on-line of course.

E. Roberts inquired on reporting process on a proof of concept.

L. Touton noted that the agreement being negotiated requires reporting on a proof of concept, consistent with the process as originally recommended by the NC.

In order to take into account relevant elements of each concept, most of the reports will be made available, except for some strictly competitive information that will, except possibly for some strictly competitive information that will be kept confidential. There will be periodic reports, with some special reports on the start-up due in the early phases.

Ph. Sheppard questioned on differences from UDRP needed for different TLDs, e.g. dotBIZ .

L.Touton agreed that some enforcement mechanism is included in initial proposals.

C. Chicoine asked if the enforcement mechanism means a revision of the UDRP and would there be a uniform process applied to chartered TLDs as well?

L.Touton underlined diversity as one of the goals. He said that his understanding is that restrictive enforcement mechanism will be handled according to what is proposed. DNSO will be given particular responsibilities in this area.

E. Roberts asked for the ICANN staff view on the NC role in the proof of concept process and possible roll out of new gTLDs.

L. Touton advised that the NC has a clear role in this process and suggested that the NC consider setting up a group to examine proof-of-concept, thus providing additional recommendations for further TLD introductions.

Ph. Sheppard recalled that the Business Plan incorporates evaluation of new TLDs and additional candidates, and will be discussed in Melbourne.

Agenda item 8: ccTLDs - report on issues arising from the 2001 (Hawaii and Geneva meetings)

E. Porteneuve reported on recent ccTLDs meetings held in Hawaii and Geneva.

244 ccTLDs operate worldwide (set-up according to the ISO 3166-1 codes) while 98 (40%) contribute to the ICANN process. In voting for NC delegates (both in 1999 and 2000) 95 ccTLDs took part, representing approximately the same percentage.

Last meeting in Geneva was very well attended, 70 ccTLDs were represented the highest number ever reached in ccTLD-ICANN events.

Three main topics were discussed:

  1. Agreement ccTLD with ICANN (including GAC); The assuption on contracts with ccTLD seems rather unrealistic - the extension of USG agreement with ICANN expect the contract with ccTLD within less than one year, which may be summarized by "242 countries and territories in 242 days ?" There is still a lot of work to understand what the contract or Memorandum of Understanding between ccTLD and ICANN is about.
  2. Financial contribution to ICANN (ccTLDs were requested to contribute 35% of overall ICANN budget for fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, 1.5 million USD per year).
  3. Direct relationship between ccTLD and ICANN, whether as a Supporting Organization or as an Advisory Committee.

It was strongly felt that the ccTLDs have little chance to have a representative elected to the ICANN Board and are therefore, seeking new ways to communicate directly with the Board. This does not preclude the channel of communication within the DNSO. The same topics will be discussed in Melbourne to fulfil ccTLDs goal to outreach to a largest possible number of ccTLDs in different regions of the world.

More documents on ccTLD - ICANN meetings is available at the ccTLD website: http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/20010201.ccTLD-ICANN-agenda.html

P. de Blanc added that the Geneva meeting was a significant success and attracted ccTLDs from African countries, which was rather positive. The ccTLDs want to support ICANN process and are very much interested in NSI contract and discussions on gTLDs. But they would like ICANN to move away from US centric and gTLD issues and have more resources dedicated to ccTLDs matters.

Th. Swinehart asked about those ccTLDs who market themselves non-geographically and those who do not, and how this difference is being handled.

P. de Blanc advised that the percentage of commercial ccTLDs is insignificant. Some are operating as gTLDs and are not subject to the UDRP.

O. Garay said that the current situation is caused by a lack of formal agreement with ICANN. This should be achieved.

Y.J. Park asked what is the status now with the 244 ccTLDs.

P. de Blanc responded that the status quo would remain. Priorities will come up for economic reasons: smaller ccTLDs will have to do some outreach.

Y.J Park said that many of them do not know what is in the ICANN contract.

P.de Blanc informed that 20 or 30 contracts would be in hand by the time the contract with US government will be extended. ccTLDs recommended to ICANN to start with draft contract developed by the ccTLD Constituency instead of coming with a new contract as most ccTLDs would certainly agree to sign.

Agenda item 9: Streamlining - DECISION on closure of working groups that have completed their task (A, B, C) and use of their e-mail lists

Ph. Sheppard proposed that in preparation of a new Business Plan and of setting up of a new Secretariat, the NC take a decision to formally close WG A, B &C. One question arising is therefore use of the subscribers list database. He therefore proposed to close WG A, B & C, transfer the e-mail addresses to the GA announce list in order to maintain optimal outreach.

P. de Blanc agreed adding opt out instructions should be provided and a thank you for contributions.

Th. Swinehart suggested also providing a link to the DNSO site, which will be the easiest source of information for participation in future, DNSO groups.

The following motion was moved by Ph. Sheppard (seconded by P. de Blanc):

Decision D6: The NC closes WG A, B &C, moves all subscribers to the GA announce, and will inform the groups where to find information for future participation. This motion was unanimously passed with no votes against and no abstentions.

Agenda item 10: WG D - final report, use for Review process and next steps and agenda item 11: WG E - next steps with final report will be delivered to the Melbourne meeting, where they will be included within the Business Plan discussions.

Agenda item 12: Budget Committee Update

In absence of R. Cochetti, E. Roberts, a member of the Budget Committee, informed that current discussions are about a suitable process to recover constituency’s outstanding dues and put in place a process to address the issue of non-payment. A several stage process is envisaged which may culminate in as loss of voting rights. A more detailed report will be provided in Melbourne.

Agenda item 13: A.O.B.

13.1 NC dinner in Melbourne

E. Roberts informed the Council on dinner arrangements made for the evening of 10th March 2000. Following a timing conflict, a time change from 7.30 to 8.30 was agreed. To enable her to choose appropriate venue, she urged the NC members to confirm their participation (accompanying persons are welcome).

NC members will make transportation arrangements individually. Ph. Sheppard thanked Erica for kindly taking care of the NC dinner arrangements.

13.2 Multilingual domain issue

Y.J. Park asked L. Touton if ICANN is planning a session on multilingual domain issue, as M. Katoh made believe at the recent meeting in Kuala Lumpur

L. Touton said that subject is not currently scheduled and mentioned listed topics scheduled for public forum:

- New gTLDs

- ccTLDs

- DNSO review

-At Large Study Committee Report

Subsequently to the meeting L. Touton informed the Council:

"Following up on Y.J. Park's question, the topic of internationalized domain names has been added to the agenda of the Public Forum to be held 12 March 2001 in Melbourne. A topic paper consisting of a series of questions designed to prompt public comment has been posted at: http://www.icann.org/melbourne/idn-topic.htm and an associated web-based public comment forum has been established."

Ph. Sheppard mentioned that multilingual domain names will be a part of the NC discussions in Melbourne.


Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked all participants for their participation

24:15 end of call

Next public NC meeting will be held on 11 March 2001, in Melbourne

Annex 1


Future timetable for the groups input


1. The DNSO comment period on the draft DNSO Review Report v. 2.0a ended February 11th.

Next steps

2. Comments submitted from WG Review and others have been incorporated as appropriate by the chair of the Names Council Review Task Force (NCRTF) into a draft version 3. NCRTF comprises one representative from each of the seven NC constituencies. Version 3 has been validated by remaining members of the NCRTF

3. DNSO Review Report version 3 was received 18 February by the ICANN Board. This is in preparation for the Board's meeting in March in Melbourne and to allow full time for an ICANN public comment period.

4. As was mandated, the task of the Names Council Review Task Force, including a DNSO public comment period, is now complete.

5. In order to ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board, all further comments from WG Review should be directed to the ICANN public comment website, when the ICANN public comment period begins.

6. At the closure of the ICANN public comment period the task of WG Review will be complete.


7. The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the final WG D report and from the Review process to develop a new process to implement the recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in this implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the structure of participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO working groups!

Kind regards,

Theresa Swinehart, Chair, DNSO Review Task Force

Philip Sheppard, NC Chair

Annex 2

DRAFT Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names Council, v2

Published: 20 February 2001

DRAFT Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names Council v2

Note: None of the following are proposals for new procedures. This document consolidates existing decisions relating to internal procedure made by the Names Council since its inception and practices that have been used to implement them. These rules of procedure need formal adoption by the NC to comply with the completion of the probation period relevant to certain rules and minor clarifications in wording.


1. NC Chair

2. Conduct of NC meetings

3. Intake committee

4. Proxies

5. Approval of the summary of NC meetings

6. Recording of NC meetings

1. Names Council Chair

1.1 Election

The NC Chair will be elected by the members of the NC by simple majority vote and will hold office for a period of six months. One renewal, subject to a fresh vote, of six months will be allowed. A retiring Chair will not be eligible for re-election for a period of one year.

1.2 Meeting schedules

The NC Chair will finalise a schedule of all meetings during a calendar year by the last day of January of that year. NC members may request changes to the schedule during the year which may be agreed upon by the Chair in consultation with the NC, subject to the minimum period of notice below.


2. Conduct of NC meetings

2.1 Meetings Schedule

In compliance with by-law VI-B 2(h), meetings must be scheduled by the NC Chair with at least 14 days notice, except in emergency situations which shall be decided upon by the Intake Committee.

In any given year, the time of the meetings may vary to accommodate the different geographic regions represented by Names Council members. By way of guidance start times corresponding to local times for the Names Council members earlier than 06.00 and later than 23.00 should be avoided where possible.

2.2 Voting

In compliance with by-law VI-B 2(h), voting will be simple majority vote. To pass a motion must attain a majority of the votes cast. Abstentions count as votes cast. This has the effect of making an abstention count the same as a vote against.

2.3 Quorum

In compliance with by-law VI-B 2(h), a majority of the total number of NC members then in office constitutes a quorum. Proxy votes shall not count toward the presence of a quorum.

2.4 Speaking at meetings

Both at physical and telephone meetings the NC Chair will recognise three types of intervention in the following order of priority:

  1. A point of order
  2. A point of information
  3. A normal substantive intervention

At a physical meeting, an NC member may raise a hand or during a teleconference an NC member may speak over the dialogue and say immediately "point of order". The Chair will suspend discussion and hear the point.

Points of information and normal interventions. At a physical meeting, an NC member may raise a hand and wait to be recognised by the Chair and during a teleconference an NC member may speak in an appropriate gap and say immediately "their name to speak". This will be noted by the Chair who will invite the intervention in due course.

To ensure balance, the Chair has the discretion to delay an intervention by a frequent speaker to allow others to speak. By way of guidance for the Chair, a NC member is not expected to speak for more than three minutes at a time and the Chair should solicit the views of other NC members before returning to the same speaker on any one issue. Such discretion should not be exercised for a "point of information". A point of information is for NC members seeking information from the Chair or other NC members about meaning or procedure — it is specifically not intended to provide information.

2.5 Seating

During in-person meetings, the NC Chair should be located so he/she can see all members. The NC endorses a better seating arrangement for inter-NC communication than the "panel on a platform" favoured to date by host venues.


3. Intake Committee

3.1 Objective

The Intake Committee (IC) is responsible for proposing the agenda for NC meetings.

3.2 Composition

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.

3.3 Agenda proposals for NC meetings

Any of the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by e-mail to nc-intake@dnso.org :

There will be a limit of one posting per entity 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.

3.4 Agenda preparation

The IC shall be responsible for:

In order for a topic to appear on the NC agenda being prepared by the IC, 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 15 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. The agenda, once seen by the Chair, will be posted by the Secretariat within one working day of receiving the IC agenda.

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.

3.5 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.

3.6 Reports and declarations

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.

3.7 Exceptions

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


4. Proxies

4.1 Eligibility

Only elected Names Council members may cast a proxy vote on behalf of another Names Council member.

4.2 Notification

In advance. Any Names Council member may designate a Names Council member as his/her proxy by e-mail to the council list (or by telephone to the Names Council Secretariat).

During a meeting. If the Names Council member is able to participate in a Names Council telephone conference but has cause to leave the call the Names Council member may then designate a proxy representative.

4.3 Acceptance

The designated Names Council member must confirm willingness to exercise the proxy by confirming acceptance by e-mail to the Council List or by voice during a meeting.

4.4 Revocation

A Names Council member may revoke the proxy designation at any time in advance by sending an e-mail to the Council list or by voice during a meeting.

4.5 Names Council member incommunicado

When a Names Council member ceases to be contactable (defined as either notification of e-mail delivery failure or non-response to notified e-mail or telephone, for three consecutive weeks), the Constituency of that member has the right (subject to the existence of Constituency procedures) to designate one of its other elected constituency Names Council members as interim proxy holder for the Names Council member incommunicado. In such a situation, the Constituency will act promptly to locate the Names Council member incommunicado, and/or to replace the member.

Should the Names Council member (previously incommunicado) notify the Names Council Secretariat either by e-mail or by telephone of new contact details then the interim proxy will be revoked.


5. Approval of the summary of NC meetings

5.1 Timetable

In compliance with by-law VI-B 2(h) summaries of NC meetings should be made public within 21 days of an NC meeting.

5.2 Procedure

1. Within seven days of an NC meeting, the Secretariat will forward draft summary to the NC Chair

2. Within 10 days of the meeting, the Chair will approve the draft and request the Secretariat to circulate the draft summary to NC members for comment and approval. If no comment is received within seven days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting.

3. All comments received from NC members will be incorporated in the summary unless there are objections from other NC members.

4. Where there are objections, the Chair will attempt to resolve the issue (by reference to the audio transcript if any) and secure agreement from the relevant NC members. If agreement is not achieved, the Chair will determine the final version of the minutes and may note areas in which agreement has not been achieved.

5. The Chair will ensure the above procedure is complete and an approved version of the summary is circulated and made public within 21 days of the relevant meeting.

6. In accord with by law III-2(a) the formal approval of the summary will be at the following meeting of the Names Council.


6. Recording of NC meetings
- provisional arrangements with effect from December 2000

6.1 Scribe

Until such time as the DNSO has internal staff support that is sufficient to provide these services, the Chair, or in the Chair's absence, the ICANN Secretary in conjunction with the AFNIC Project Manager, are requested to procure and, at reasonable cost, compensate, a scribe for each teleconference or other Names Council meeting. The NC Chair and ICANN Secretary are further requested to report periodically to the NC on the costs incurred.

6.2 Duties of scribe

The scribe will prepare minutes of each meeting and the taking and maintenance of an audio recording of each meeting.

6.3 Disputes

If any NC member disputes what he or she has said in the resulting draft minutes, a transcript of the relevant portion of the audio recording shall be prepared and made available to the NC before its formal approval of the minutes.

Information from:
DNSO Names Council