[wg-review] Fw: [nc-review] Comments on DNSO Review Report V1
This is comments from IPC representative to NC Review TF.
It has a comment on constituencies and consensus.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.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
> individual domain name holders and Internet users are not represented on
> Names Council as a general statement since at least in our case, we do.
> 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
> to have the narrative removed since I imagine that all Constituencies at
> 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
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html