[Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
Joseph Alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sat Feb 7 00:08:55 UTC 2015
I support this approach as well.
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn St.Amour [Lynn at lstamour.org]
Received: Saturday, 07 Feb 2015, 7:50AM
To: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
CC: ICG [internal-cg at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints]
Manal,
first, GREAT job as usual!
And, both you and Daniel have laid this out quite clearly. Thank you both.
I support many of Daniel's points (just as you did), in fact, all but one. I do have concerns about "No acknowledgements. No forwarding" for the reasons you state. It does not feel responsive enough.
I would support a path that acknowledged and forwarded any comments the ICG forum received to the appropriate OC - with a short note re our expectations (captured largely in your earlier note, and worded in a way that did not trigger our common fears of incorrect impressions). It could also reaffirm the role of the OC's and the ICG - this will also be instructional for anyone else contemplating a note to the ICG.
I also see this more as an Operating Practice than a Procedure per se.
If we go this way, I am happy to work with Manal (and others) on text.
Best all,
Lynn
On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:31 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> Comments, short ones :), inline below ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling
> process complaints]
>
> On 2.02.15 23:00 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Jean-Jacques,
>>
>> ... And I think it would be great to continue this discussion on the
>> mailing list so that it need not occupy much time during the F2F
> meeting. ...
>
>
> After the discussion so far, my proposal remains as is:
>
> avoid any impression that we run a complaints procedure or an appeals
> process.
> [MI]: Agree ..
>
> No procedure.
> [MI]: Agree .. We don't necessarily need a procedure, per se, but at
> least we need common agreement on how to proceed ..
>
> No acknowledgements. No forwarding.
> [MI]: Let me try to go down this path, then what? Do nothing? Then why
> did we agree to receive comments directly from the community at the
> first place? Do something else? Fair enough, what is it?
>
> Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process.
> [MI]: I fully agree .. Each ICG member can pose questions to the
> relevant OC .. and I support Alissa's proposal, to gather all ICG
> questions and compile one list (union of all) for each relevant OC ..
> ICG questions and public comments are different and not mutually
> exclusive processes, as ICG questions may or may not have to with public
> comments ..
>
> It appears to me that we should address this first. It makes no sense
> going into details about a specific procedure before we definitely agree
> to have one.
> [MI]: Definitely .. I fully agree ..
>
> [MI]: I think, by now, both our views are clear :) .. Let's hear other
> colleagues then try to reach an ICG consensus view and a way forward
> tomorrow at the meeting ..
>
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list