Re: [council] additional comments ..... Final report of Nc task force

[philip.sheppard@aim.be]

Ken, thanks for the comments. I believe most are addressed in the report or may fall outside of the TOR. Details below.
> 
> " 1.With regard to questions asked of any new constituency, shouldn't there
> be an additional question regarding the potential constituency's commitment
> to financially support the DNSO? 

Financial criteria are important and are included in Q 6.2
> 
> 2. shouldn't the individual  constituency be considered in the context
> of consideration of the ALSO, as they are likely to serve similar interests
> and it would be counter-productive to the DNSO and ICANN to form duplicative
> groups?

 Yes but this is handled in the Tf on structure.
> 
> 3.Should a WG chair be removed without first obtaining the majority support
> of the WG?

Reasons for removal are failure to perform at request of members of WG - this seems right.
> 
> 4.Why is WG membership not open to representatives of constituenciesthat
> are not NC members?  Aren't TFs open to such members? 

WG membership is open to all - see report.
> 
> 5.There should be a minimum number of WG members b/c that affects the number
> needed for a minority view.  Also, section 13 of appendix A provides that
> if "there is a significant minority proposal, this proposal should also
> be documented in the interim report of the Working Group."  What is a significant
> minority proposal?  The document defines a minority view as one supported
> by 2 or more members.  this should be consistent."

This mixes two things. The report had a minority report because this was 2/8. A WG will be an unknown number so the chairs judgement of "significant " seems a practical solution.

Hoppe this helps.
Philip TF Chair