[Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Feb 2 19:00:58 UTC 2015
Please see the thread started at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-January/002749.html and the documents at https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Community%20comment%20handling. This is what the discussion has been about, I thought.
And I think it would be great to continue this discussion on the mailing list so that it need not occupy much time during the F2F meeting.
On Feb 2, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> Dear Manal & All,
> I will be taking part in the Singapore ICG meeting by remote participation. In the meantime, I would like to offer a remark.
> Having volunteered to help Manal on how community input and comments should be handled, I was expecting that we would all wait for Manal to send around an initial draft. As we know, things went faster than that. I've not consulted Manal about this, but can easily imagine that keeping track of all our input without a first common reference was not so simple. She's made a very good job of summing up the various suggestions: thank you Manal!
> May I suggest that in the future, when someone or a small group of colleagues is asked to take on a specific job, we let her/him/them send out her/his/their initial draft, and respond to that?
> I wish you a very productive and pleasant stay in Singapore!
> Best regards,
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
> Cc: "Coordination Group" <internal-cg at icann.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 2 Février 2015 14:03:32
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:03 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
> 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?
> Thanks Daniel ..
> I'm flexible .. Will leave it in the hands of our chairs ..
> Kind Regards
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg