<div dir="ltr"><div>I also agree with Manal proposal.</div><div>What I do not support is that ICG acts as post office .</div><div>I our charter we also mentioned other entities, individuals not members of operating 7 operational community.</div><div>We need to remember long long discussions on that. Some people wanted to disregard the inclussiveness and just limits comments made to or by operating8 operational communities.</div><div>That was rejected.</div><div>Either we are inclussive or exclussive</div><div>We need to be very careful.</div><div>I have some problems with arguments launched by some colleagues and once again fully agree with Manasl and Jean-Jaques </div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-29 12:15 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jjs@dyalog.net" target="_blank">jjs@dyalog.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I agree with all Manal's comments so far on this thread.<br>
Jean-Jacques.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Mail original -----<br>
De: "Manal Ismail" <<a href="mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg">manal@tra.gov.eg</a>><br>
À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <<a href="mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net">daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net</a>>, <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
Envoyé: Jeudi 29 Janvier 2015 09:06:02<br>
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints<br>
<span><br>
Many thanks Daniel for your responses ..<br>
Comments inline below ..<br>
Kind Regards<br>
--Manal<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg<br>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:24 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints<br>
<br>
On 28.01.15 8:59 , Manal Ismail wrote:<br>
> Thanks Alissa for adding this to the agenda and to enlightening<br>
comments<br>
> received so far ..It's crucial that we continue to be transparent<br>
> consistent and predictable throughout the handling of all complaints<br>
</span>...<br>
<span>><br>
> Having said that, I feel I'm not that clear about a few things and<br>
hope<br>
> you wouldn't mind my below questions ..<br>
><br>
> Generally speaking:<br>
><br>
> 1.Are we going to forward every complaint, formally, to the relevant<br>
> Operational Community (OC)? Or depend on their accessibility on the<br>
web?<br>
<br>
We should point the OCs to the forum and sugest that they monitor it and<br>
<br>
pick up any comments relevant to them. This does not prevent us to point<br>
<br>
out any comments we consider relevant. This way we are not in the<br>
business of filtering and yet we make sure nothing we consider relevant<br>
is overlooked by the OCs.<br>
<br>
[MI]: I'm afraid this neither ensures consistency nor predictability ..<br>
Some comments may be left out completely if we follow a casual approach<br>
</span>... I believe we should handle all comments exactly the same regardless<br>
<span>the end result ..<br>
<br>
> 2.Are we going to reply to the complainer? how his/her complaint was<br>
> considered? reasons for the ICG decision?<br>
<br>
If a comment is addressed at the ICG explicitly we should consider it<br>
explicitly and decide how we act. In that case the procedure should be<br>
to acknowledge that we are dealing with it and to describe how we do<br>
that. E.g. "Thank you for your comment; the ICG will discuss it at their<br>
<br>
meeting on .....".<br>
<br>
If a comment is general or addressed to an OC we do not need to<br>
acknowledge it.<br>
<br>
[MI]: Makes sense but I was under the impression that everything posted<br>
on the ICG forum is addressed to the ICG unless I have overlooked<br>
something ..<br>
<br>
><br>
> More specifically, I think we may run into one of the following<br>
situations:<br>
><br>
> 1.Complaints submitted for the first time directly to the ICG<br>
><br>
> (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)<br>
><br>
<br>
yes<br>
<br>
> 2.Complaints submitted to the ICG by way of a complaint/escalation<br>
><br>
> (How to handle? forward formally to the relevant OC? expect an answer<br>
> from the relevant OC? go through the mailing lists and dig the answer?<br>
</span>....)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
We are not an arbitration body! The only thing such a comment could do<br>
is raise questions by *ourselves*. This involves a judgement call on our<br>
<br>
part on whether we consider the comment justifying our action.<br>
<br>
If we let go of that principle we are muddying the waters and open<br>
ourselves to all sorets of unpleasantness.<br>
<br>
Yes, it means we have to make a decision on whether the comment has<br>
enough substance for our action. But we cannot avoid that in any case.<br>
<br>
<br>
> a.Complaints about the substance of the proposal<br>
><br>
> i.Something overlooked<br>
><br>
> (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)<br>
<br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
><br>
> ii.Something out of scope (How to handle? Who should decide?)<br>
><br>
<br>
See above. If someone comments an OC proposal is mission creeping this<br>
should be addressed by the OC. They should say why it is in scope. If<br>
the conflict persists we have to make a decision on how to resolve that<br>
in the combined proposal.<br>
<br>
[MI]: I posed this question to address a situation where one aspect is<br>
debated whether it's within the scope of a proposal or not .. Do we, as<br>
ICG, have to decide whether this aspect is needed for the final<br>
proposal? What if this aspect is addressed in one proposal but not the<br>
other(s)? Of course if all three believe it's out of scope of the final<br>
proposal this is something else ..<br>
<br>
> iii.A point of view that did not make it to the submitted proposal<br>
><br>
> (How to handle? decide whether it gained consensus, as defined by the<br>
> OP? check whether the consensus process was followed? ...)<br>
<br>
See above. The OC needs to defend their process. We have to evaluate the<br>
<br>
proposal and the process. We can do that without passing explicit<br>
judgement each and every comment. Again: we are not an arbitration body<br>
that has to give an opinion to each specific case before it.<br>
<br>
[MI]: Fair enough ..<br>
><br>
> b.Complaints about the process followed<br>
<br>
is semantically the same as above<br>
<br>
[MI]: I agree .. debating the substance would mostly (not always) lead<br>
to the debating the process followed .. For example, I think point (i)<br>
above is not related to the Process ..<br>
<br>
> i.Not happy with the process as defined by the OC (nothing we can do)<br>
><br>
<br>
how is this different from above?<br>
<br>
[MI]: Sorry for not being clear here .. I meant to say if someone, for<br>
example, doesn't like the idea of rough consensus, then tough luck, this<br>
is not the place to change the basis on which an operational community<br>
has agreed to work .. This may be an unneeded situation but I was just<br>
trying to exhaust all paths theoretically ..<br>
<br>
> ii.Process was not followed (How to prove? How to handle?)<br>
<br>
again the same as above.<br>
<br>
[MI]: Not sure what you mean by 'above' .. But yes, it relates to points<br>
(ii) & (iii) under 'Substance'.. But I don't think it related to point<br>
(i) under 'Process' ..<br>
<br>
I'll try to synthesize in a separate message.<br>
<br>
[MI]: Thanks again .. Much appreciated .. will be sending shortly to the<br>
list, taking into consideration comments made on the list and on the<br>
call ..<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>