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

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

NC Review TF members,

And then can we clear things up a bit here?

1. Caroline also admits there are some groups think the current
representation
    is not sufficient or adequate which is not completely accurate from her
    perspective.[Noted]

2. As you said, if IP constituency allows individual members, it would be
helpful
    for you to provide following info

    - how many individual members are in the constituency out of the total #
    - what kind of rights they have in the constituency compared to the
others
    - what kind of participation mode so far from those individual members
    - etc...

3. For the last, I do also support for Roberto's concerns expressed earlier
    and I do want to deliver the strong demand on creating Individual Domain
    Name Holders Constituency I have seen in WG-Review process.

Thanks,
YJ

> I can only speak from my Constituency that does allow individual members
and
> the organizations represent individuals and companies alike, obviously
with
> an ip bent.  I just do not believe that it is accurate to say they are not
> represented at all.  Please note that I am not stating whether the current
> representation is sufficient or adequate, and I believe the report makes
it
> clear that some people do not think it is, but I did not think the
statement
> by itself was completely accurate.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R.Gaetano@iaea.org [mailto:R.Gaetano@iaea.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:10 PM
> To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; nc-review@dnso.org
> Cc: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
> Subject: RE: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1
>
>
> 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
>