[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [discuss] Next Names Council Meeting


The agreement was that all meetings will be kept open if possible. Our only
concern is disruption. If there is disruption that does not permit the
meeting, we would try to remove only disruptive individuals, if this is not
enough, we would only close the meetings as a last resort. We really hope
that this will not happen. We will have to see how we handle
teleconferences, as there is a cost problem involved in not knowing how
many people would join.

It should be very clear that by disruption we do not mean censorship,
Disruption means not allowing the meeting to take place by constantly
talking out of turn, interrupting others or being generally disruptive in
any other way. Disruptive in form, not on contents.

All this should be in the minutes when they are posted.


At 12:14 12/06/99 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>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
>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.