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

Lynn St.Amour Lynn at lstamour.org
Fri Feb 6 23:50:17 UTC 2015


first, GREAT job as usual!  

And, both you and Daniel have laid this out quite clearly.  Thank you both.

I support many of Daniel's points (just as you did), in fact, all but one.  I do have concerns about "No acknowledgements. No forwarding" for the reasons you state.    It does not feel responsive enough.

I would support a path that acknowledged and forwarded any comments the ICG forum received to the appropriate OC - with a short note re our expectations (captured largely in your earlier note, and worded in a way that did not trigger our common fears of incorrect impressions).  It could also reaffirm the role of the OC's and the ICG - this will also be instructional for anyone else contemplating a note to the ICG.

I also see this more as an Operating Practice than a Procedure per se.

If we go this way, I am happy to work with Manal (and others) on text.

Best all,


On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:31 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Comments, short ones :), inline below ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling
> process complaints]
> On 2.02.15 23:00 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Jean-Jacques,
>> ... 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. ...
> After the discussion so far, my proposal remains as is: 
> avoid any impression that we run a complaints procedure or an appeals
> process.
> [MI]: Agree ..
> No procedure. 
> [MI]: Agree .. We don't necessarily need a procedure, per se, but at
> least we need common agreement on how to proceed ..
> No acknowledgements. No forwarding.
> [MI]: Let me try to go down this path, then what? Do nothing? Then why
> did we agree to receive comments directly from the community at the
> first place? Do something else? Fair enough, what is it? 
> Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process.
> [MI]: I fully agree .. Each ICG member can pose questions to the
> relevant OC .. and I support Alissa's proposal, to gather all ICG
> questions and compile one list (union of all) for each relevant OC ..
> ICG questions and public comments are different and not mutually
> exclusive processes, as ICG questions may or may not have to with public
> comments ..
> It appears to me that we should address this first. It makes no sense
> going into details about a specific procedure before we definitely agree
> to have one.
> [MI]: Definitely .. I fully agree ..
> [MI]: I think, by now, both our views are clear :) .. Let's hear other
> colleagues then try to reach an ICG consensus view and a way forward
> tomorrow at the meeting ..
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list