[Internal-cg] Community Comments Handling Process ..

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Manal,
Thank you again
Do  not appologize as it was not necessary
Pls kindly note my last comments to you as well
Kavouss

2015-01-31 23:42 GMT+01:00 Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.co>:

> Folks:
> I would edit one comment below.  I don't think that every
> comment/complaint requires an answer nor do I think we dictate what the
> operational communities do in that regard.
>
> Instead of:
>
> ICG needs to be ensured by the Operational Community(ies) that all
> comments/complaints have been carefully considered by the corresponding
> community and the complainant(s) was/were duly answered.
>
> How about this?
>
> "The Operational Communities should carefully consider all
> comments/complaints and should confirm with the ICG that they have done
> so."
>
>  Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
> On Jan 31, 2015, at 5:16 PM, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Arasteh ..
> Sincere apologies to have overlooked your comments that were sent to me ..
> I have included them in the attached and on Dropbox ..
> Please let me know if this accurately reflects all your comments ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 31, 2015 4:48 PM
> *To:* Manal Ismail
> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff; Coordination Group; Daniel Karrenberg
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Community Comments Handling Process ..
>
> Manal,
> I sent you my comments in two forms
> One a clean text
> the other texts with revision marks
> Have you kindly considered and took them into account
> The points that I raised are important and should be reflected in the texts
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-01-31 13:03 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
>
>
> I remain unconvinced that we need such a procedure.
>
> There is no need to respond to individual comments. It is sufficient to
> note that the ICG is paying attention to the forum.
>
> There is no need to forward any comments to anyone. The forum is public
> and anyone can read it. It is sufficient to point those we wish to take
> action based on comments to the forum.
>
> We can always request specific actions from anyone.
>
> On the other hand the procedure creates risks of abuse and bad press for
> us.
>
> Thus we should not implement this procedure.
>
>
> Details:
>
> 1 - Alert
> This serves no essential purpose as we are all aware of the forum. as
> written it causes the secretariat to forward, and thus multiply, spam.
>
> 2 - Acknowledge
> This serves no essential purpose as the commenter can check whether their
> comment appears in the forum themselves. It creates a risk for error
> because it assumes the secretariat can reliably determine what in fact is
> spam. While I agree with Martin that "common courtesy" is desirable this
> does not justify the additional effort and the risk.
>
> 3 - Forward
> This serves no essential purpose as the OCs can read the public forum. It
> involves an unnecessary decision about what is spam and which operational
> community is relevant together with the associated risks for abuse and
> error. We can make the suggestion without forwarding individual comments.
>
> 4 - Follow-up
> This is not really part of a (new) procedure. We can state this publicly
> without calling it "procedure".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> <Community Comments Handling Process - 29Jan14-alc-ka.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150201/dad5e17f/attachment-0001.html>