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

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sat Feb 7 09:45:24 UTC 2015

By way of clarification and as an input input into this discussion, I 
thought I'd provide my suggestions in writing.

1.  Provide an automated receipt message for each comment filed.  I 
would suggest that the automated receipt include our process related to 
comments so that there is nether false expectation nor misunderstanding.
2. We provide each community with the option of receiving forwarded 
messages or allowing them to self monitor the forum.  In the case of the 
latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In 
either case we will not filter the messages.
3. On a periodic basis, the Secretariat will create a summary digest of 
comments received by subject (participation, consensus, specific 
element, etc) and we will request that communities to whom the comments 
have been addressed post any summary updates related to their responses 
or how they have dealt with the comments in general or by comment 
subject which they find appropriate.
4.  Our internal process.  We will review comments received and where we 
believe that they require specific response or follow up, ICG will 
create and send specific questions to the relevant community (ies).

Hope this helps...

On 2/6/2015 6:50 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
> Manal,
> 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,
> Lynn
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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