[nc-review] 2nd comment on DNSO Review Report version 2.0

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Theresa,

Let me try to decsribe DNSO review report discussion
during NC teleconference on Jan. 24.

> The draft DNSO Review Report prepared by the Task Force will be
> discussed at the January 24th Names Council conference call. Any revisions
> resulting from discussion will be incorporated, and the revised draft will
be
> posted to the DNSO for public comment.

This should be updated according to NC meeting as follows:

The draft DNSO Review Report was discussed at the January's 24th
NC teleconference all. Any substantial discussion was not added except
the pressed timeframe discussion among members. Instead, post comments
have been made through NC-review discussion later.

[Note 32]

> Individual domain name holders and Internet users, are not represented
> on the Names Council, nor the Non-Commercial Constituency.
> But see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00126.html
> for discussion on accuracy of the statement.

==> This should be changed into
Individual .....are not represented on the NC nor Non-commercial .....
However, there is a different view from IPC.

Rather than put "accuracy" of the statement which itself leads to some
prejudgement which is not accurate.

> H. Translations of DNSO and ICANN documents
[snip]

> The DNSO should seek to continue efforts increase to ensure global
> participation for all. Some recommendations to help achieve this objective
> have been under discussion during the review process.

> I. Ensuring Adequate Level of Participation
[snip]

To do ensure such a goal, we first should let the global participants
to have enough time to read and think and respond to the all the documents
written in foreign language under foreign policy background and legal
system.

Thanks,
YJ