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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So, if I am understanding Avri & Ron correctly, you want to expand the
review to include the structures of only the NCPH?

I could see some value in that, especially given that some defined groups
should be updated (e.g. ISPC vs. the absent Webhosting/Web Development
interests), or are often duplicative (BC & IPC).

J.


On 6/6/14, 9:59 , "Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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 ³borders²
>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>