[Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

[joseph alhadeff]

Colleagues:

I think the fine line we have to walk is to not replace the communities' 
judgement with our own, but in our RFP we do have a requirement to 
review their compliance with their own process.  If a 
question/issue/concern/complaint was raised, was it appropriately 
reviewed and addressed according to the community process.  If it was 
given a fair hearing under that process, then we are not in a position 
to question the result as it relates to that process, unless it involves 
one of the other RFP requirements like the NTIA conditions.  While each 
of the communities will hopefully have provided us with information on 
how they have complied with the NTIA conditions, we are in a position to 
request further information where they have failed to provide the 
appropriate information and will have to assess whether those conditions 
are met in the combined proposal.

Best-

Joe
On 1/30/2015 12:52 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Our job is to produce an acceptable document. Not fall into the trap of
>> responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of
>> the operational communities.
> This doesn't make any sense to me, Patrik. Most process complaints or concerns (and yes, Daniel, they ARE complaints) will have been expressed in the operational community but were not adequately answered or resolved, in the minds of the complainants. People send comments to us precisely because we are not the operational community.
>
>> In most cases it is probably the case that the
>> question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever
>> process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or
>> similar arrangements).
> Really? This response seems to assume that the OC processes were perfect and no one would ever have cause to dispute them. I can't buy that.
>
> Let me also remind everyone - again - that the RFP was an ICG product, made in response to the NTIA - it was not an operational community product. We required them to be open and inclusive. If someone complains that they were not open and inclusive, we have to make judgments about whether those complaints are worth pursuing by the ICG.
>
> However, on the key issue I think we are in violent agreement. Daniel said it very clearly here:
>
>> 3) If any on us considers that the substance of a comment needs to be
>> addressed by the ICG in order to ensure that our document will be
>> acceptable, they should raise that substance in our deliberations and suggest
>> an action we should take. Possible actions I can imagine are: amend a draft
>> of our document, ask an operational community to consider the question
>> and amend their input to us, ask an operational community to respond to a
>> comment about their process, respond to a comment about the ICG process.
>>
>> 3a) This means it will take one of us to raise a question from a comment for
>> us to address it. No comments will be automatically addressed. There will be
>> no "due process" other than our normal ICG process. It also means that all
>> comments are treated absolutely equal.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg