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

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

Avri,

Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a problem with 
regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's primary role?

Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in general?  
I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly.

In my limited view, there have always been disagreements between different 
groups in the GNSO and probably always will be and I don't see it being any 
worse under the House model nor do I think it would change much under a 
different model.  Disagreements are healthy as long as we explain our 
differences and collaborate to find compromises that most can accept.  The 
challenge is to learn to work together in spite of our differences.  If we can 
come up with a structure that would do that, that would be great but I am not 
convinced it's a structural problem but a behavioral problem.  If we change 
structure and don't change behavior, we will likely not have made any 
meaningful change.

Chuck



-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 12:10 PM
To: Maher, David; Gomes, Chuck; Stephane Van Gelder
Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

Hi,

I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more adversarial 
than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed.
 The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that the fact 
that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for openness and 
transparency.

Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability of all 
the structures, we are talking structure.  Or at least we are talking 
structurally.  To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its implications 
including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most important issues.

avri


On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote:
> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do.
> David
> David W. Maher
> Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
> Public Interest Registry
> 312 375 4849
> 
> From: <Gomes>, CHUCK GOMES <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM
> To: Stephane Van Gelder <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
> Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment 
> Questions
> 
> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one 
> has convinced me of that yet.
> 
>  
> 
> Chuck
> 
>  
> 
> *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 05, 2014 1:33 PM
> *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
> 
>  
> 
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>  
>