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

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

Hello members,

This is comments from IPC representative to NC Review TF.
It has a comment on constituencies and consensus.

Thanks,
YJ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
To: <nc-review@dnso.org>
Cc: <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:02 PM
Subject: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1


> 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!
>


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html