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

[discuss] RE: Next Names Council Meeting


As I recall, there was first a vote to have a closed meeting 6/25 2-4 pm,
followed by an open meeting 4-6 pm.  Later on it was decided that meetings
would be open unless disruption occurred, which (I completely agree) is
different than censorship, which to my knowledge was not advocated by

There was an official vote on the closed followed by open meeting, and it
was approved unanimously by NC members who voted.  It was never changed, and
it appears to have survived in the official posting, whose URL I quoted.

So I really don't know how it's working, because it seems that two different
things were decided.  Maybe you can clarify.

And however it is conducted, the fact that a Names Council meeting is taking
place should be as widely disseminated as possible.  One common request from
a number of parties is that we should be involved in communication and
outreach - publicizing meetings would seem to me to be the least we could


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Members-owner@IATLD.ORG [mailto:Members-owner@IATLD.ORG]On Behalf
>Of Javier SOLA
>Sent: Saturday, June 12, 1999 7:25 PM
>To: Antony Van Couvering; IATLD Members list
>Cc: DNSO Mail List
>Subject: Re: [IATLD Members] [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.