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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am also supportive of getting feedback on things like the role of NCAs.  
There are two reasons why I suggested a delay in doing that:  1) We agreed a 
couple of meetings ago that we would get better responsiveness if we kept the 
360 as simple as possible, including not making it too long; 2) the intent of 
this review was to deal with non-structural issues.    We will need to 
eventually do a review on structure and it would fit nicely there.  Also, how 
many people really understand the role of NCAs except those of us who have been 
directly involved; I think it will require some education if we want to get 
much feedback.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 3:55 PM
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: Stephane Van Gelder; Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

I very much agree with this.
If we are not considering issues like the house structure, I am bemused as to 
why we would limit the review in such a way.

David

On 6 Jun 2014, at 5:26 am, Ron Andruff 
<ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


Dear colleagues,

I find it interesting that 3 past GNSO Council Chairs and one current V Chair 
are all at the lead of this thread.  Who would know better about the things 
that could work better within Council?! Clearly, the GNSO can and should be a 
better functioning body than it is today.

I find myself coming down on the side of Avri's and Stephane's argument.  This 
is indeed the 360, so why are we holding anything back from gaining better 
insight?

To that end, if all options are on the table as suggested, why not take the 
temperature of the community to find out whether the bicameral structure is 
something that community members want to keep, modify or dispense with?  Seems 
like an appropriate question to raise if we want to determine where we go from 
here.

My two cents...

RA


Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com/>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 13:33
To: Avri Doria
Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to 
accomplish.

My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on the 
changes the GNSO needs.

If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and the 
questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points related to the 
GNSO's structure to come to the surface.

After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I have ever 
heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem".

That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from structure 
issues? That IS the issue!

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
Milathan LTD
"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.Milathan.com<http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Discover The Milathan Post on 
http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/>

On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> wrote:

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<mailto: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>
> [mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.lifedotsport.com/>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: 
>> owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto: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<mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>
>