Re: [council] FW: Draft 1.2 for the NC-Review

[cchicoine@dkwlaw.com]

I agree with most of Philip's comments.

I personally think that the background information is quite handy,
especially for those who will never bother to look it up themselves and
rely on their own opinion or belief of what the responsibilities are.  The
info forces them to focus on what the bylaws mandate, rather than what
people think the DNSO should or should not be doing.

I agree that the questions should remain objective  I also think we need to
have some instructions for responding to the questions.  For example,
someone feels that the representation of the Constituencies needs
improvement (some groups are under-represented, some over-represented, some
misrepresented).  I would prefer to see concrete examples and most
importantly the basis for people's conclusions, rather than just conclusory
statements.  In addition, I think it is important to know who the comments
are coming from (not the person's name, but what interest(s) they
represent.  Just as with the working group process, it is not meaningful to
have 100 of one Constituency respond and only 5 of another.

Finally, given the length of the document and the number of questions, and
the fact that we still have to solicit comments (which should allow people
at least two weeks to comment) and given the Review committee I suspect
will need AT L:EAST one week to review, digest and summarize the comments
(although the original comments should be appended), we need to finalize
this asap.