[Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
manal at tra.gov.eg
Mon Feb 2 07:50:45 UTC 2015
Thanks Mr. Arasteh .. Noted ..
Comments inline below ..
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group
Subject: Re: Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
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"
[MI]: This has already been taken care of in the draft (should we decide to follow this approach), which now refers to comments/input .. Yet I have noticed the following highlighted and underlined words submitted in you text, please let me know if you want to change/delete them or feel free to do that yourself in Dropbox:
- The ICG will suggest that the community carefully handle the comments as if they were made inside their process and address them as they normally would and inform the complainant(s) accordingly .
- 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
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.
[MI]: inserted within the suggested handling options below without the full description .. Hope this is ok ..
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 .
[MI]: inserted within the suggested handling options below .. Hope this is ok ..
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]
"we just act as narrating the case rather than making any judgement." [Kavouss]
"ICG should declare 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 a view to resolve the matter ,to the extent practicable, in a satisfactory manner and sending a copy to the results of review to ICG" [Kavouss]
"The ICG actions to be a) in full compliance with the terms and conditions as stipulated in its Charter and b) be concise, precise without any judgemnet on specific issue including the substance of the matter." [Kavouss]
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 !!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg