<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Avri,</div><div><br></div><div>This makes a lot of sense to me as well. With Nom Com experience these last two years, I can attest to the vetting NCAs go through and agree that we should review why one has a vote while another does not. That logic deserves some fresh scrutiny in my view as well. Thanks for adding it to the mix.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div><br></div><div>RA</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:75%;color:#575757">Ron Andruff<br>www.lifedotsport.com </div></div> <br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> <br>Date: 06/04/2014 19:03 (GMT-05:00) <br>To: gnso-review-dt@icann.org <br>Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions <br> <br><br><br>Hi,<br><br>Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed<br>to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned.<br><br>I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But<br>that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'.<br>This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should<br>check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect<br>on NCA positions.<br><br>avri<br><br><br>On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote:<br>> Hi Avri,<br>> <br>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how<br>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be<br>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of<br>> them?<br>> <br>> Thanks,<br>> <br>> RA<br>> <br>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com<br>> <br>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org<br>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent:<br>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt@icann.org Subject:<br>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok.<br>> <br>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses<br>> <br>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the<br>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being<br>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well<br>> could be useful.<br>> <br>> avri<br>> <br>> <br>> <br></body>