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

[Stephane Van Gelder <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting how this whole discussion seems to have turned into a "putting
the cart before the horse exercise".

Chuck, Volker and others: I would argue you do not need to be convinced
that structure is the problem in this group. The team's job is to determine
the right questions for a review, not to pre-determine the answers.

I believe that is exactly the point Ron has made in one of his responses.

Structure is not a NCPH problem, it's a GNSO review question.

The questionnaire should seek to ask the right questions. Let those who
answer them tell you that structure is not the issue if that's what they
want to tell you.

But if you haven't asked them the question, you can be sure they will not
respond on structure at all.

Thanks (from someone who has "lived" inside both houses!).

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 6 June 2014 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house "borders"
> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>