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

[Avri Doria]

On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>> 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.

It can't be.  If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and
gets worse all the time.

And I certainly can't see discussing it in council.  What is the
difference between discussing it in the house and in council.  the other
house is going to give us advice on how to get along.  Not too likely.
In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never
been a workable formula.

Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their
neighbors.

And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did.  And indeed when it
gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that
is not way to live.

> 
> 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.

Yeah maybe.  But no.  In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH
people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever
put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split.
Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather
funny.  Pathetic humor, but funny.

> 
>> 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.

On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues.  We mostly all
know how to behave professionally in council most of the time.

> 
> 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.

That would imbalance the house which would be complicated.
Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members.
> 
> 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.

I do not understand the timing issue.  This is the time.  next time is
in 3 years.  There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out
what needs to be done.


> 
> 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.

There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key
component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a
critical one.  You either accentuate the differences with sets of
oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different
alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time.  Because of
the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG
versus SG, alliances are much more difficult.  When I compare the days
in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far
more dynamic in the past.

> 
> 
> 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.

(: that is far too few people for a voting population.  The idea that
one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by
13 in another is a problem in accountability.  21 voters is small
enough.  I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large
book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth.
But I know that is a structural change too far.  The point is a large
more diverse representative voting populations makes for better
democracy, aka it is better for accountability

> 
> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation
> on the community's influence on the GNSO. 

BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee
(which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*.
They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs.

[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.

Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting.  And she could
do just as well if she had a vote.  Many people do good jobs in the
council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan
provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The
two issues are not related.  The community selects three people to
contribute to the decisions making.  Voting is part of that.

Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage
teams?  We would be contributing just as much.

avri

* yiddish word for a special kind of craziness