[Internal-cg] Handling process complaints
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 30 19:35:49 UTC 2015
I think this is an issue to be taken care by Manal
Leave it at her capable hand
2015-01-30 17:14 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
> > On 30 jan 2015, at 06:52, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 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.
> Ok, I do think I express myself badly.
> > 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
> The devil is in the details. An issue can very well has been taken care of
> in one of the OC but the individual can still send us a question about it.
> If the appeals procedures in the OC has been managed correctly, should
> there this time be an ability to appeal to ICG?
> What I think we should do of course is to se whether due process has been
> used, and if it has, well, then that OC must, according to their process,
> be able to declare consensus. And not "appeal" to ICG.
> >> In most cases it is probably the case that the
> >> question in reality already have been taken care of, according to
> >> 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.
> Ok, this is a different and possibly third thing. And yes, I did for these
> three cases then simplify my response.
> We given this have:
> a. The process OC use is flawed and that is pointed out to us.
> b. The process OC use is ok, but not applied correctly (i.e. violated by
> the OC themselves).
> c. The process OC use is ok, applied correctly, but someone is not happy
> with the result.
> I was, and you are right in that Milton, only talk about (c), while there
> are cases (a) and (b) as well.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg