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

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

No, I’m asking a question.  The issues raised by you & Ron seem to reflect
a dissatisfaction with the structure of the NCPH.  If the “consumers” of
the CPH are satisfied (or maybe, less dis-satisfied) with the structure of
their organizations, does that mean we should focus the review on the one
and not the other?

J.



On 6/6/14, 10:14 , "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>>