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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table.  But
since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated
by SICs behavior yet again.

Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the
structures.  If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then
why bother?

avri


On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote:
> 
> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following
> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time.
> 
> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when
> answering to Q #3
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM
> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
> 
> 
> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural
> issues that will involve more complexity.  If we include structural
> issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more
> complex.  I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on
> structural issues.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM
> 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
>>
>>
>>
> 
>