[council] additional comments ..... Final report of Nc task force
the following comments on the final report were
presented to me by registrar consituancy members.
i am fowarding to you for
your perusal
regards
ken stubbs
"
1.With regard to questions asked of any new constituency, shouldn't there be an
additional question regarding the potential constituency's commitment to
financially support the DNSO?
2.
shouldn't the individual constituency be considered in the context of
consideration of the ALSO, as they are likely to serve similar interests and it
would be counter-productive to the DNSO and ICANN to form duplicative
groups?
3.Should a WG chair be removed without first obtaining
the majority support of the WG?
4.Why
is WG membership not open to representatives of constituenciesthat are not NC
members? Aren't TFs open to such members?
5.There should be a minimum number of WG members b/c
that affects the number needed for a minority view. Also, section 13 of
appendix A provides that if "there
is a significant minority proposal, this proposal should also be
documented in the interim report of the Working Group." What is a
significant minority proposal? The document defines a minority view as one
supported by 2 or more members. this should be
consistent."
|