A seemingly harmless message from .museum's Cary Karp on observers at NC meetings triggered a short exchange of notes on the Names Council list which shed a spotlight on the very different ideas various players have about the role of the Names Council and its members.

Karp's message asked for the re-establishment of listen-only lines to Names Council telephone conferences, so (at least) constituency chairs can dial into meetings, and consultation of Names Council members with their respective constituencies becomes possible in real-time. The rationale: The [gtld] constituency's representatives on the NC then put the constituency's views forward during the NC meetings and vote according to prior agreement. ... If a question is called in a form that differs from what is expected on the basis of pre-meeting publication, it may be difficult for NC members to predict how their constituencies would feel about the final form of a modified motion. Note that this rationale is rather interesting when you think it through: The constituencies have three representatives on the Council. They have a single chair. All three representatives are expected to confer with the chair who seemingly is supposed to have the better idea on how the constituency as a whole feels.

Somewhat unexpectedly, ICANN's lawyer Joe Sims joined the discussion, stating that he found Karp's request very odd. If the NC rep is nothing more than a conduit for majority opinion in his/her constituency, why do we need a NC or for that matter a SO? Why not just have the constituencies deal directly with the Board, since the NC under these circumstances is not offering any value added to the process? Sims' idea of the Names Council's role looks somewhat different: I would offer the Board as a good example, where I dare say that the votes of each Board member do not necessarily reflect the majority views of their "constituents," because they recognize they have a broader responsibility. So does the NC.