Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

[Ron Andruff <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

This makes a lot of sense to me as well. With Nom Com experience these last two 
years, I can attest to the vetting NCAs go through and agree that we should 
review why one has a vote while another does not. That logic deserves some 
fresh scrutiny in my view as well. Thanks for adding it to the mix.

Kind regards,

RA


Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com 

-------- Original message --------
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 
Date: 06/04/2014  19:03  (GMT-05:00) 
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions 
 

Hi,

Both.  I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed
to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned.

I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken.  But
that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'.
This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical.  We should
check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect
on NCA positions.

avri


On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote:
> Hi Avri,
> 
> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how
> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be
> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of
> them?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> RA
> 
> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent:
> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject:
> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok.
> 
> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses
> 
> Also is there any way the review could take into account the
> situation with NCAs?  Do we think that they way they are being
> apportioned in the best.  Perhaps a column referring to them as well
> could be useful.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>