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

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

Ron,

Please see my personal responses below.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 12:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions


Dear all,

I am struggling to understand why we would not do a full review using 1 survey? 
 It would be helpful to know the point of doing 2 or 3 reviews - recognizing 
that we will absolutely not get people to fill in 2-3 surveys?
[Chuck Gomes] I think that it is much more likely to get responses to several 
short surveys than to one long one.  The P&I WG requested information from SGs 
and Constituencies and ACs that was very long and the response was very limited.

So I am looking to those in favor of the latter to help those like me to 
understand.

Better, in my view, to challenge every element of our current GNSO structure to 
establish a foundation upon which we can build a better ICANN.  

To be clear, what we are working with now (bicameral house structure) was an 
11th hour compromise and many in the NCPH, myself included, feel strongly that 
this old compromise needs a good long look to elicit improvements that 
encourage and enhance a more collegial working environment on both the Council 
and between the constituencies.  And lest we forget, we have new constituencies 
such as the NPOC as well as those bodies such as Geo and Brand gTLDs that have 
arisen since the bicameral house structure who may like to be on equal footing 
with the incumbent bodies...
[Chuck Gomes] How does the bicameral structure limit collegiality?  If we 
cannot be collegial in the bicameral model, what makes you think we could be in 
another model?

ICANN is not the Board or the staff, it is the community.  If ICANN is to take 
on IANA stewardship and lead the way on Internet governance, as is being 
discussed, the community needs a strong and dynamic structure to support the 
institution in doing so.  At this point, it is difficult to find anyone within 
the ICANN community (who has been around since the last GNSO
review/improvements) that can point to examples that demonstrate our current 
model works. Sad, but true; it doesn't.  So we need to roll up our sleeves and 
do the heavy lifting that needs doing, rather than punting the critical issues 
down the road.  For me, that idea is a non-starter.
[Chuck Gomes] Do you think that the IGO/INGO PDP WG  was a failure?  Do you 
think that the GNSO Council's comments (i.e., Cross Community WG Draft Charter) 
was a failure?  Do you think that the work going on with the GAC currently is a 
failure?  I could go on and on.  Has everything been a glowing success?  No, 
but to ignore all the successes is a terrible injustice.

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 12:10
To: David W. Maher; Gomes, Chuck; Stephane Van Gelder
Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions


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