[Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 23 10:08:59 UTC 2015
Dear Manal,
I sincerely appreciate-your valuable works.
However, the changes that I made were the minimum that should be taken into account .
I do not mind about other issues( superfluous text ) .
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
> On 23 Feb 2015, at 08:13, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
> Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion ..
> Happy to add it ..
> The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment ..
>
> Dear Mr. Arasteh ..
> Would this address your concern?
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM
> To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh
> Cc: Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
>
> Thank you Kavouss and Manal.
> I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal is;
> " 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".
> If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments.
> My comments are as attached.
> Mary Uduma
>
>
> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>
> Dear Mr. Arasteh ..
>
> Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion ..
> Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) ..
> Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
>
> Dear Manal,
> Thank you very much for the good work that was done.
> I was identified to be part of small group on the matter.
> There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED.
> Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary.
> However, I have not touched that .
> See attachment with revision marks
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:
> Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation ..
> In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can
> put this into action ..
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
>
> On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote:
> > Dear All ..
> >
> > Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on
> > ICG Forum..
> >
> > I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore ..
> >
> > I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and
> > was too messy intrack changes ..
> >
> > The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference..
> >
> > I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the
> > smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of
> time ..
> >
> > Hope to have this settled soon ..
> >
> > Kind Regards
> >
> > --Manal
>
>
>
> Manal,
>
>
> thank you very much for driving this along.
>
> "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft
> based on Singapore Meeting
> 11 February 2015 - V.1"
>
> is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it.
>
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> Thanks Lynn and thanks Joseph .. This is extremely helpful ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling
> process complaints]
> 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...
> Joe
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150223/4d712433/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list