[nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

With respect to footnote 30, I do not think that it is accurate to say that
individual domain name holders and Internet users are not represented on the
Names Council as a general statement since at least in our case, we do.  Can
we say something like "Except to the extent represented in a Constituency,
individual domain name holders and Internet users are not represented as
their own Constituency within the Names Council?

With respect to Section E, you mention an IETF type consensus building
model.  Since people may not be familiar with this, can we include a cite
that explains this model?

With respect to footnote 26, I do not mind keeping the ;link in, but prefer
to have the narrative removed since I imagine that all Constituencies at one
time through this process given the lightning speed we have had to work at
were not able to develop a full Constituency position.

Also, with respect to Section C on Individual Constituency, I recommend
inserting Ken Stubb's reference to the bylaws regarding the issue of the NC
adding a Constituency to the DNSO (I am sure Ken can resend it to you, if
you do not have it handy).

That's it!

And, it really cannot be said enough, great job on this difficult project!