[atrt2] Comment review

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Sep 23 03:33:54 UTC 2013

Doing it after the draft goes out sounds fine to me.


At 22/09/2013 09:04 PM, Brian Cute wrote:
>If there is a method to do a "group review" of comments that we can 
>use effectively, I am open to that.  At the same time, the most 
>important task is to complete the drafting assignments so we can 
>issue the draft Report on time.  It is absolutely important to 
>reflect Public Comment received, to date, in the draft Report.  That 
>is achievable if the drafters go through the public comments and 
>select certain comments for citation as Alan noted.  At this moment, 
>I suggest that a full team review of comments, if feasible, occur 
>after the draft Report goes out and before the Final Report is published.
>On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Avri Doria 
><<mailto:avri at acm.org>avri at acm.org> wrote:
>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.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 22/09/2013 09:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> avri
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> atrt2 mailing list
> >> <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > atrt2 mailing list
> > <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
> >
>atrt2 mailing list
><mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130922/0cd190c5/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list