[Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Thu Jan 29 11:15:06 UTC 2015

I agree with all Manal's comments so far on this thread.

----- Mail original -----
De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>, internal-cg at icann.org
Envoyé: Jeudi 29 Janvier 2015 09:06:02
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

Many thanks Daniel for your responses ..
Comments inline below ..
Kind Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:24 PM
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

On 28.01.15 8:59 , Manal Ismail wrote:
> Thanks Alissa for adding this to the agenda and to enlightening
> received so far ..It's crucial that we continue to be transparent
> consistent and predictable throughout the handling of all complaints
> Having said that, I feel I'm not that clear about a few things and
> you wouldn't mind my below questions ..
> Generally speaking:
> 1.Are we going to forward every complaint, formally, to the relevant
> Operational Community (OC)? Or depend on their accessibility on the

We should point the OCs to the forum and sugest that they monitor it and

pick up any comments relevant to them. This does not prevent us to point

out any comments we consider relevant. This way we are not in the 
business of filtering and yet we make sure nothing we consider relevant 
is overlooked by the OCs.

[MI]: I'm afraid this neither ensures consistency nor predictability ..
Some comments may be left out completely if we follow a casual approach
... I believe we should handle all comments exactly the same regardless
the end result .. 

> 2.Are we going to reply to the complainer? how his/her complaint was
> considered? reasons for the ICG decision?

If a comment is addressed at the ICG explicitly we should consider it 
explicitly and decide how we act. In that case the procedure should be 
to acknowledge that we are dealing with it and to describe how we do 
that. E.g. "Thank you for your comment; the ICG will discuss it at their

meeting on .....".

If a comment is general or addressed to an OC we do not need to 
acknowledge it.

[MI]: Makes sense but I was under the impression that everything posted
on the ICG forum is addressed to the ICG unless I have overlooked
something .. 

> More specifically, I think we may run into one of the following
> 1.Complaints submitted for the first time directly to the ICG
> (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)


> 2.Complaints submitted to the ICG by way of a complaint/escalation
> (How to handle? forward formally to the relevant OC? expect an answer
> from the relevant OC? go through the mailing lists and dig the answer?

We are not an arbitration body! The only thing such a comment could do 
is raise questions by *ourselves*. This involves a judgement call on our

part on whether we consider the comment justifying our action.

If we let go of that principle we are muddying the waters and open 
ourselves to all sorets of unpleasantness.

Yes, it means we have to make a decision on whether the comment has 
enough substance for our action. But we cannot avoid that in any case.

> a.Complaints about the substance of the proposal
> i.Something overlooked
> (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)


> ii.Something out of scope (How to handle? Who should decide?)

See above. If someone comments an OC proposal is mission creeping this 
should be addressed by the OC. They should say why it is in scope. If 
the conflict persists we have to make a decision on how to resolve that 
in the combined proposal.

[MI]: I posed this question to address a situation where one aspect is
debated whether it's within the scope of a proposal or not .. Do we, as
ICG, have to decide whether this aspect is needed for the final
proposal? What if this aspect is addressed in one proposal but not the
other(s)? Of course if all three believe it's out of scope of the final
proposal this is something else .. 

> iii.A point of view that did not make it to the submitted proposal
> (How to handle? decide whether it gained consensus, as defined by the
> OP? check whether the consensus process was followed? ...)

See above. The OC needs to defend their process. We have to evaluate the

proposal and the process. We can do that without passing explicit 
judgement each and every comment. Again: we are not an arbitration body 
that has to give an opinion to each specific case before it.

[MI]: Fair enough ..
> b.Complaints about the process followed

is semantically the same as above

[MI]: I agree .. debating the substance would mostly (not always) lead
to the debating the process followed .. For example, I think point (i)
above is not related to the Process ..

> i.Not happy with the process as defined by the OC (nothing we can do)

how is this different from above?

[MI]: Sorry for not being clear here .. I meant to say if someone, for
example, doesn't like the idea of rough consensus, then tough luck, this
is not the place to change the basis on which an operational community
has agreed to work .. This may be an unneeded situation but I was just
trying to exhaust all paths theoretically .. 

> ii.Process was not followed (How to prove? How to handle?)

again the same as above.

[MI]: Not sure what you mean by 'above' .. But yes, it relates to points
(ii) & (iii) under 'Substance'.. But I don't think it related to point
(i) under 'Process' ..

I'll try to synthesize in a separate message.

[MI]: Thanks again .. Much appreciated .. will be sending shortly to the
list, taking into consideration comments made on the list and on the
call ..


Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list