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

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

Avri has it right regarding the NCPH.

Sorry to be posting so regularly, but it is important for members of the CPH
to understand that the NPCH (ISP, BC, IPC on one side; NCUC and NSCG on the
other) have little in common by nature.  Yet, we are forced to work together
in an impossible environment.  Thus, even selecting a Board representative
that both sides of the House can agree upon is extremely difficult and,
sadly, comes down to not who is absolutely most qualified, but rather
whether an individual can pull two votes from the other side of the House to
win the election...  This is indefensible any way you cut it!  And for this
reason needs to be reviewed.

Kind regards,

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: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:47
To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions


Hi,

Try living on the NCPH side - there is almost nothing we can agree on.

But beyond that, the houses were supposed to be just counting fantasies,
without function.  Yet we have been giving them function without giving them
any defined structure.  That is a recipe for failure - where you have
functions going to a completely undefined structure.

In any case, it does not matter much what we all say. The SIC will decide,
this is a top down review. Though I will continue to argue my case that this
is an unworkable situation.

BTW, I can see the advantage of coming from the house that can work out its
differences when it is the other house that can't.

cheers,
avri


On 06-Jun-14 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote:
> Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house “borders”
and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While there
is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to
differences in position than due to the house structure. 
> 
> So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure
actually forms a problem. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> 
> On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>