[atrt2] Comment review
avri at acm.org
Sun Sep 22 20:10:44 UTC 2013
I do not think we are in great disagreement on this point.
I beleive that a considered statement from the group that we looked at an issue and decided not to follow it up, as responding. I do beleive we need to be intentional about it. I do not beleive that every comment necessarily merits a recommendation, but it does warrant consideration.
And no, I don't know when we are going to do it either. At this point I am still fretting over and working on, my massive load of homework.
If it is any consolation I do not think there are many issue we did not discuss to some extent.
On 22 Sep 2013, at 12:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Avri, as you know, I am a strong supporter of the methodology used in PDPs to ensure that all comments are addressed, and I have no problem with doing a similar walk-through for our comments, although I question exactly WHEN we are going to do that given the schedule.
> However, I must differ with one thing that you said. I appreciate that you used the phrase "make sure we have not left any of the community's comments unworked" instead of "each and every concern has been dealt with in the report", but I still feel that the word unworked is too strong. Any given ATRT is not oblidged to address every community concern. It must pick and choose, and some will be rejected for various reasons without any thorough research or discussion. Our effective communal bandwidth leaves us no option. So the purpose of any such walkthrough should be to ensure that on issues we have decided to take up, we have considered the perspective of the commenter, and for those we do not take up, we need to be satisfied that it is either not a true problem in our collective minds, or something that we have simply not had the time or energy to address.
> At 22/09/2013 09:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> After last weeks meeting, I decided to reread the comment summary provided to the group by the staff. I am still in the process.
>> On reading, it occurred to me that we have not done, one of the activities that all recent GNSO WGs have done in processing comments, they walk through all of the comments, one by one using the summaries and make sure that each and every concern has been dealt with in the report. We have responded to many by focusing on issues and slicing and dicing the comment pool among the many smaller team efforts. But this mean that there may be some that fell through the cracks.
>> I am not saying we should produce a comment-by-comment response report, we already decided not to as a group, though that is a decision I remain uncomfortable with. But we should at least do a 'walk through' the document to make sure we have not left any of the community's comments unworked. I think we will find in a walk through that many of not most will indeed have been covered, and we can just note in the walkthrough which recommendation covers the issue. but if we find an issue we missed, we need to make sure we have done the right thing with it. My previous email about the recent perceived as unilateral Staff actions is one example where I do not feel I could adequately answer the question: how have you dealt with this comment? And in BA, I expect we will be asked questions exactly like that. We will need to have answers. We will need to do better than: "well, you know, what can I say."
>> I should point out that this is something that is always done via teleconference in PDP WGs, so I am not suggesting more face to face meetings.
>> I don't know how you all want to do this, but I beleive that if we don't walk through the comments we got in the process of finalizing our report as quickly as possible, we will have been remiss in our responsibilities. I want to make sure that we are not aiming at this self imposed end of year deadline in such a hurry that we don't get the whole job done.
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
More information about the atrt2