[Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

[Patrik Fältström]

Dear Kavouss,

I completely trust and want to leave it with Manal. I just wanted to explain what was in my head to Milton.

   Patrik

> On 30 jan 2015, at 20:35, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Patrik
> I think this  is an issue to be taken care by Manal
> Leave it at her capable hand
> Kavouss
> 
> 2015-01-30 17:14 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>>:
> 
> > On 30 jan 2015, at 06:52, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto: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 community.
> 
> 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 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>    Patrik
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150130/a4ef8dab/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150130/a4ef8dab/signature.asc>