[Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Mon Feb 2 08:03:12 UTC 2015
On 1.02.15 13:50 , Manal Ismail wrote:
> 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
Very useful indeed. Thank you Manal.
Shall we discuss this in the f2f meeting or continue the debate here?
More information about the Internal-cg