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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the quick response Avri.  Please see my responses below.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 1:05 PM
Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions




On 06-Jun-14 18:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Avri,
> 
> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a 
> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's primary 
> role?
> 

The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without months of 
garbage processing.  It just does not work.  We have great trouble electing a 
vice-chair and we have failed completely in electing a Board member this 
time.[Chuck Gomes]  I don't think this has impacted policy development but it 
is still a very good point of an issue that needs to be dealt with.   I would 
like to think (maybe naively) that this should be able to be solved within the 
existing structure.  If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then 
maybe it should be discussed by the full Council.

Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious that the 
differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being able to elect a Chair 
from our side of the GNSO.  That is a kind of dysfunction that rots most 
organizations sooner or later.[Chuck Gomes]  I think this is kind of an unfair 
statement.  The reality is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the 
last round.  If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore 
ways to rotate the position among the two houses.  I haven't discussed this 
with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as long as the 
candidates have good leadership skills and are able to commit the time.

> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in 
> general?  I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly.

The Council is not sperate form the GNSO.  The dysfunction is in both on the 
NCPH side.

Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider adding 
new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks like a possible 
limitation.
[Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly be complicated but I don't think it 
should be impossible.

But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time.

What I am arguing for is gathering information.  Maybe my perception is mine 
alone.  The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering information strikes 
me as sort of problematic, though.
[Chuck Gomes] As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to 
gathering the information but just question whether we should do it in this 
exercise, i.e., the timing.

If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions won't 
hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and I am wrong.
[Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask questions about structure, I won't 
fight.  And I didn't say everything is wonderful.  Everything is far from 
wonderful but I am not convinced that is largely a factor of structure.


As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info.

But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost everything 
else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is figure out how to 
elect vice chairs and Board members.  But for the NCPH it would remove a 
limitation.

As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that one 
person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by 5 people.
[Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me.

Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on the 
community's influence on the GNSO.
[Chuck Gomes] I need some help understanding this.  BTW, the homeless, voteless 
NCA is providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and 
representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review.  To me that is much more 
valuable than any vote would be.

But I may be wrong.  Only collecting data will tell.


avri