[Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 11:47:10 UTC 2015


I also agree with Manal proposal.
What I do not support is that ICG acts as post office .
I our charter we also mentioned other entities, individuals not members of
operating 7 operational community.
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.
That was rejected.
Either we are inclussive or exclussive
We need to be very careful.
I have some problems with arguments launched by some colleagues and once
again fully agree with Manasl and Jean-Jaques
Kavouss

2015-01-29 12:15 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> I agree with all Manal's comments so far on this thread.
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>, internal-cg at icann.org
> Envoyé: Jeudi 29 Janvier 2015 09:06:02
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints
>
> Many thanks Daniel for your responses ..
> Comments 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: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:24 PM
> To: internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints
>
> On 28.01.15 8:59 , Manal Ismail wrote:
> > Thanks Alissa for adding this to the agenda and to enlightening
> comments
> > received so far ..It's crucial that we continue to be transparent
> > consistent and predictable throughout the handling of all complaints
> ...
> >
> > Having said that, I feel I'm not that clear about a few things and
> hope
> > you wouldn't mind my below questions ..
> >
> > Generally speaking:
> >
> > 1.Are we going to forward every complaint, formally, to the relevant
> > Operational Community (OC)? Or depend on their accessibility on the
> web?
>
> We should point the OCs to the forum and sugest that they monitor it and
>
> pick up any comments relevant to them. This does not prevent us to point
>
> out any comments we consider relevant. This way we are not in the
> business of filtering and yet we make sure nothing we consider relevant
> is overlooked by the OCs.
>
> [MI]: I'm afraid this neither ensures consistency nor predictability ..
> Some comments may be left out completely if we follow a casual approach
> ... I believe we should handle all comments exactly the same regardless
> the end result ..
>
> > 2.Are we going to reply to the complainer? how his/her complaint was
> > considered? reasons for the ICG decision?
>
> If a comment is addressed at the ICG explicitly we should consider it
> explicitly and decide how we act. In that case the procedure should be
> to acknowledge that we are dealing with it and to describe how we do
> that. E.g. "Thank you for your comment; the ICG will discuss it at their
>
> meeting on .....".
>
> If a comment is general or addressed to an OC we do not need to
> acknowledge it.
>
> [MI]: Makes sense but I was under the impression that everything posted
> on the ICG forum is addressed to the ICG unless I have overlooked
> something ..
>
> >
> > More specifically, I think we may run into one of the following
> situations:
> >
> > 1.Complaints submitted for the first time directly to the ICG
> >
> > (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)
> >
>
> yes
>
> > 2.Complaints submitted to the ICG by way of a complaint/escalation
> >
> > (How to handle? forward formally to the relevant OC? expect an answer
> > from the relevant OC? go through the mailing lists and dig the answer?
> ....)
>
> We are not an arbitration body! The only thing such a comment could do
> is raise questions by *ourselves*. This involves a judgement call on our
>
> part on whether we consider the comment justifying our action.
>
> If we let go of that principle we are muddying the waters and open
> ourselves to all sorets of unpleasantness.
>
> Yes, it means we have to make a decision on whether the comment has
> enough substance for our action. But we cannot avoid that in any case.
>
>
> > a.Complaints about the substance of the proposal
> >
> > i.Something overlooked
> >
> > (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > ii.Something out of scope (How to handle? Who should decide?)
> >
>
> See above. If someone comments an OC proposal is mission creeping this
> should be addressed by the OC. They should say why it is in scope. If
> the conflict persists we have to make a decision on how to resolve that
> in the combined proposal.
>
> [MI]: I posed this question to address a situation where one aspect is
> debated whether it's within the scope of a proposal or not .. Do we, as
> ICG, have to decide whether this aspect is needed for the final
> proposal? What if this aspect is addressed in one proposal but not the
> other(s)? Of course if all three believe it's out of scope of the final
> proposal this is something else ..
>
> > iii.A point of view that did not make it to the submitted proposal
> >
> > (How to handle? decide whether it gained consensus, as defined by the
> > OP? check whether the consensus process was followed? ...)
>
> See above. The OC needs to defend their process. We have to evaluate the
>
> proposal and the process. We can do that without passing explicit
> judgement each and every comment. Again: we are not an arbitration body
> that has to give an opinion to each specific case before it.
>
> [MI]: Fair enough ..
> >
> > b.Complaints about the process followed
>
> is semantically the same as above
>
> [MI]: I agree .. debating the substance would mostly (not always) lead
> to the debating the process followed .. For example, I think point (i)
> above is not related to the Process ..
>
> > i.Not happy with the process as defined by the OC (nothing we can do)
> >
>
> how is this different from above?
>
> [MI]: Sorry for not being clear here .. I meant to say if someone, for
> example, doesn't like the idea of rough consensus, then tough luck, this
> is not the place to change the basis on which an operational community
> has agreed to work .. This may be an unneeded situation but I was just
> trying to exhaust all paths theoretically ..
>
> > ii.Process was not followed (How to prove? How to handle?)
>
> again the same as above.
>
> [MI]: Not sure what you mean by 'above' .. But yes, it relates to points
> (ii) & (iii) under 'Substance'.. But I don't think it related to point
> (i) under 'Process' ..
>
> I'll try to synthesize in a separate message.
>
> [MI]: Thanks again .. Much appreciated .. will be sending shortly to the
> list, taking into consideration comments made on the list and on the
> call ..
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150129/0d933aa0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list