[Internal-cg] Community Comments Handling Process ..

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Sat Jan 31 22:16:48 UTC 2015

Dear Mr. Arasteh ..

Sincere apologies to have overlooked your comments that were sent to me ..

I have included them in the attached and on Dropbox ..

Please let me know if this accurately reflects all your comments ..

Kind Regards



From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 4:48 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: joseph alhadeff; Coordination Group; Daniel Karrenberg
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Community Comments Handling Process ..



I sent you my comments in two forms

One a clean text 

the other texts with revision marks

Have you kindly considered and took them into account

The points that I raised are important and should be reflected in the texts



2015-01-31 13:03 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:

I remain unconvinced that we need such a procedure.

There is no need to respond to individual comments. It is sufficient to note that the ICG is paying attention to the forum.

There is no need to forward any comments to anyone. The forum is public and anyone can read it. It is sufficient to point those we wish to take action based on comments to the forum.

We can always request specific actions from anyone.

On the other hand the procedure creates risks of abuse and bad press for us.

Thus we should not implement this procedure.


1 - Alert
This serves no essential purpose as we are all aware of the forum. as written it causes the secretariat to forward, and thus multiply, spam.

2 - Acknowledge
This serves no essential purpose as the commenter can check whether their comment appears in the forum themselves. It creates a risk for error because it assumes the secretariat can reliably determine what in fact is spam. While I agree with Martin that "common courtesy" is desirable this does not justify the additional effort and the risk.

3 - Forward
This serves no essential purpose as the OCs can read the public forum. It involves an unnecessary decision about what is spam and which operational community is relevant together with the associated risks for abuse and error. We can make the suggestion without forwarding individual comments.

4 - Follow-up
This is not really part of a (new) procedure. We can state this publicly without calling it "procedure".

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150201/f4c5a375/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Community Comments Handling Process - 29Jan14-alc-ka.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 23435 bytes
Desc: Community Comments Handling Process - 29Jan14-alc-ka.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150201/f4c5a375/CommunityCommentsHandlingProcess-29Jan14-alc-ka-0001.docx>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list