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

[Gomes, Chuck]

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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org
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
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent:
> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org 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
> 
> 
>