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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,


That would not make sense to me.

But at this point, I would really like to collect information before the
SIC decides what needs to be done.

And I think part of the collection requires questions on the Houses and
NCAs.  I was just suggesting that the same questions be asked in regard
to these structures as well as the other structures.

avri


On 06-Jun-14 19:21, James M. Bladel wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>