[Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Feb 23 14:39:45 UTC 2015
Colleagues:
I believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included
providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves,
but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think
all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments
addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we
could use those comments to help formulate our own questions...
Joe
On 2/23/2015 5:16 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was:Handling process
> complaints]
>
> Many thanks Mr. Arasteh ..
>
> So I take this as you'd rather keep your text and not go for what Mary
> suggested based on Joe's email, right?
>
> Kind regards
>
> --Manal
>
> *From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 12:09 PM
> *To:* Manal Ismail
> *Cc:* Mary Uduma; Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM
> To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> >> [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 <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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/20150223/068bf7d4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list