[Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 1 12:21:06 UTC 2015

Dear Manal,
Thank you very much for your thorough and comprehensive analysis.
Thank you for the options you have proposed .
My comments are the following
 1. We better not to refer to " Complaint" but " comments" or " opnion " or
" views"
2. We better not to refer that a given community  " violated " r ather to
say that " comments were received claiming/ indicating that certain
preocedure were apparently not thoroughly followed " in that case we just
act as narating the case rather than making any judgement.
3. ICG  should dedclare or indicate that the attention of the community for
the report of which comments were received  was drawn to the  comments
received/ submitted in requesting to take necessary actions, as appropriate
including providing the required clarification to the commenter  with aview
to resolve the matter ,to the extent practiceable, in a satisfactory manner.
and sending  a copy to the results of review to  ICG
The ICG actions to be a) in full compliance with the terms and conditions
as stipulated in its Charter and b) be concise, precise with out any
judgemnet on specific issue including the substance of the matter .

The above course of action stems from my long expereince in internattional
consensus building enviroment.

2015-02-01 10:50 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

>  I feel that we almost agree on what should be done but disagree on how
> we should do it .. I believe, but stand to be corrected, that the below,
> sort of overarching principles, has been already agreed at the beginning of
> the process:
>  *1 – "that the work was going to be done in the operating communities
> and," [Lynn]*
> *2 – "that there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in
> place which were known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing
> them to arrive at their proposals." [Lynn] *
> *3 – **"the fine line we have to walk is to not replace the communities'
> judgement with our own**" [Joe]*
> We have already accepted to receive direct comments from the community ..
> I feel, and again stand to be corrected, that there is some agreement along
> the following lines:
> *1 – "We should read all the comments." [Daniel]*
> *2 – "We should take action on the substance from comments that we
> consider relevant for producing an acceptable document. [Daniel]*
> *3 **–* *"Of course we will observe what the OCs do with comments about
> the substance of their responses or their procedures. If we determine that
> action by an OC is needed we can decide to request it, via our normal
> process.**" **[Daniel]*
> How? I think this is the question we are debating .. What is the
> mechanism to observe what the OCs do with comments?
> In an earlier message, I've tried to list all possible categories of
> comments we may receive, but I believe Patrik has concisely and accurately
> described them as follows:
> *a. "The process OC use is flawed and that is pointed out to us." [Patrik]
> .. *My understanding is that nothing we can do here, based on Lynn (2)
> above ..
> *b. "The process OC use is ok, but not applied correctly (i.e. violated by
> the OC themselves)." [Patrik] .. *I believe this implies a
> process/substance problem .. And this is where I believe we may need a
> response based on Daniel (2) & (3) above and bearing in mind Joe (3) above
> ..
> *c. "The process OC use is ok, applied correctly, but someone is not happy
> with the result." [Patrik] .. *My understanding is that nothing we can do
> here, since the person her/himself admits the agreed process has been
> followed ..
> So what is the mechanism to observe what the OCs do with comments of
> category (b) .. Are the below suggestions (not alternatives) agreed?
> *"**It would help ICG's process if timelines for responses are determined
> and communicated to the community in question.**"* *[Mary] *
> *"highlight if we believe that the comment addresses a missing element of
> the application." **[Joe]*
> *"The Operational Communities should carefully consider all
> comments/complaints and should confirm with the ICG that they have done
> so." [Jon] *
> I believe all we need is to have a common understanding on how we will do
> things in a consistent and predictable manner..
> Hope this helps us to converge .. Apologies for yet another long email but
> at least it spares you multiple separate replies J !!
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150201/ac7ada8d/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list