[Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
Manal Ismail
manal at tra.gov.eg
Mon Feb 23 10:16:44 UTC 2015
Many thanks Mr. Arasteh ..
So I take this as you'd rather keep your text and not go for what Mary suggested based on Joe's email, right?
Kind regards
--Manal
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:09 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Mary Uduma; Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
Dear Manal,
I sincerely appreciate-your valuable works.
However, the changes that I made were the minimum that should be taken into account .
I do not mind about other issues( superfluous text ) .
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Feb 2015, at 08:13, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion ..
Happy to add it ..
The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment ..
Dear Mr. Arasteh ..
Would this address your concern?
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM
To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
Thank you Kavouss and Manal.
I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal is;
" In the case of the latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In either case we will not filter the messages".
If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments.
My comments are as attached.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
----- Forwarded Message -----
Dear Mr. Arasteh ..
Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion ..
Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) ..
Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
Dear Manal,
Thank you very much for the good work that was done.
I was identified to be part of small group on the matter.
There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED.
Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary.
However, I have not touched that .
See attachment with revision marks
Regards
Kavouss
2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:
Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation ..
In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can
put this into action ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM
To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote:
> Dear All ..
>
> Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on
> ICG Forum..
>
> I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore ..
>
> I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and
> was too messy intrack changes ..
>
> The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference..
>
> I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the
> smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of
time ..
>
> Hope to have this settled soon ..
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
Manal,
thank you very much for driving this along.
"Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft
based on Singapore Meeting
11 February 2015 - V.1"
is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Lynn and thanks Joseph .. This is extremely helpful ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:45 AM
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling
process complaints]
By way of clarification and as an input input into this discussion, I
thought I'd provide my suggestions in writing.
1. Provide an automated receipt message for each comment filed. I
would suggest that the automated receipt include our process related to
comments so that there is nether false expectation nor misunderstanding.
2. We provide each community with the option of receiving forwarded
messages or allowing them to self monitor the forum. In the case of the
latter we would ask them to provide a statement to that effect. In
either case we will not filter the messages.
3. On a periodic basis, the Secretariat will create a summary digest of
comments received by subject (participation, consensus, specific
element, etc) and we will request that communities to whom the comments
have been addressed post any summary updates related to their responses
or how they have dealt with the comments in general or by comment
subject which they find appropriate.
4. Our internal process. We will review comments received and where we
believe that they require specific response or follow up, ICG will
create and send specific questions to the relevant community (ies).
Hope this helps...
Joe
On 2/6/2015 6:50 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150223/9e971701/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list