RE: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Caroline wrote:
> 
> 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.

May I disagree with the comment, and support the original formulation.
The individuals that sit in the NC at present may well be Individual Domain
Name Holders and/or Internet Users, but are surely not representing these
constituencies in the NC.
If we accept this "indirect representation" as valid, we may as well
eliminate the Business Constituency altogether, because a large part of the
entities represented in the NC are businesses anyhow.

> <snip>
> 
> 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).

I'm not sure it is relevant in the report.
If I remember correctly, Ken was making the point that the DNSO does not
have the authority to add/delete constituencies.
That is fine, but what we are doing here is a different thing: following
mandate from the ICANN Board, we provide recommendations to improve the
DNSO, which is, of course, perfectly in order.
In other words, the point is not "to have authority to add/remove
constituencies", which obviously the DNSO does not have, but "to have
authority to make recommandations to the Board about addition/deletion of
constituencies", which obviously the DNSO has (personally, I would argue
that it has not only the "authority", but even the "obligation" - but that
is just a personal opinion).
> 
> And, it really cannot be said enough, great job on this 
> difficult project!
> 

Indeed.

Let me also take the chance to comment on the original document, point D.
General Assembly.
When Theresa asks about "GET[ting] EXACT NUMBERS", she hits the point.
We don't know the exact numbers, because the GA is a set that is not
"well-defined".
/digression of a former scholar in abstract algebra:
In set theory, a set is "well defined" when you have a procedure to tell
whether an object is an element of the set or not.
This is exactly what we do not have, and IMHO one of the biggest problems of
the GA.
/end digression

Regards
Roberto