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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

That is not at all what I am saying.
Please do not put words in my mouth.

avri

On 06-Jun-14 19:09, James M. Bladel wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>