RE: [council] RE: [nc-review] REMINDER DNSO Review

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Caroline,

I would just remind that there has been a motion from the GA that had rough
consensus in Yokohama to ask NC to create a WG for the evaluation of the
formation of a new Constituency for individuals.
The NC accepted it in principle, but Michael Schneider proposed to merge it
into the work for the DNSO Review (this one). Obviously, if the DNSO Review
does not originate a WG, but stays in the form of a Task Force (which I
consider highly insufficient to tackle the real problems), the issue of a WG
for the creation of a Constituency for individuals still holds.

Moreover, since most of the criticism about the functioning of the DNSO
points to the role of the NC and the Constituency system, I would argue that
from the PR point of view the DNSO will not come out nicely if the problem
will be managed... by a subset of the NC itself. There will be the need of
an open discussion, with request for comments, well, a WG! Anything less
will achieve the result of surviving another quarter, but not do a step
forward towards solutions.

As for being wrong sometimes, be aware that you are lucky! My wife tells me
*always* that I am wrong.

Roberto,
unplugging the computer, and looking forward to a family week-end trip to
Italy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cchicoine@dkwlaw.com [mailto:cchicoine@dkwlaw.com]
> Sent: Friday, 15 September 2000 19:56
> To: GAETANO, Roberto
> Cc: council@dnso.org; nc-review@dnso.org; owner-council@dnso.org;
> bpowell@dkwlaw.com
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: [nc-review] REMINDER DNSO Review
> 
> 
> 
> Roberto I agree with you up until a point.  My understanding 
> is that the NC
> created the Task Force/DNSO REview committee to prepare the 
> outline for
> what information needed to be collected, how, when.etc.  I 
> agree that this
> should be accomplished ASAP so we have a sufficient amount of time to
> receive comments, review them and incorporate them into a 
> final report.
> 
> However,   I did not envision that we would have working 
> groups set up (at
> least not ones like A,B or C), but that we would reach out to the
> interested parties (GA, Constituencies, etc.) requesting such 
> information
> in the manner specified in the outline (for example, an email 
> could be set
> up for each topic to which people could send in comments), 
> and once the
> deadline was over, the Task Force would review, accumulate 
> and summarize
> the comments ion a final report for ICANN.
> 
> Again, these are just my thoughts, I have been wrong before 
> (so my husband
> tells me).  I just wanted to keep the dialog going so this thing moves
> forward.  I would be interested to hear what others thoughts 
> are on their
> interpretation of how we should proceed.
>