[Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Thu Jan 29 20:48:06 UTC 2015


Thank you Manal,

As Daniel explained, we have managed to mix up two (at least) different issues here. :-)

Yes, I agree we of course must have a plan for all comments that come to us. I think Alissa has explained, given our input, a very good path forward on how to act on them.

   Best, Patrik

> On 29 jan 2015, at 21:40, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> Many thanks Daniel for your thorough email ..
> To make sure I address all the points you've raised, please find my responses inline below ..
> Thanks Patrik for your reply, which I've also responded to, inline below ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:16 PM
> To: Daniel Karrenberg
> Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints
> 
> This makes to me a lot of sense.
> 
> Our job is to produce an acceptable document.
> [MI]: Agree ..
> 
> Not fall into the trap of responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of the operational communities.
> [MI]: I don't think anyone suggested that the ICG respond to comments submitted .. The suggestion was forwarding them to the relevant operational communities which I thought to be non-controversial, and consider their response ..
> 
> In most cases it is probably the case that the question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or similar arrangements).
> [MI]: Fair enough .. this would be an equally informative response to receive from the relevant operational community ..
> 
> We should stay by following our process and do our work and answer questions on our process.
> [MI]: Fair enough .. but our process allowed for receiving comments .. and we should agree to either forward all, or forward none, or if we are to forward some then at least this has to be based on some agreed criteria .. If I recall correctly, we have already forwarded one ..
> 
>   Patrik
> 
>> On 29 Jan 2015, at 12:15, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Manal, colleagues,
>> 
>> let me explain why I believe we should not define detailed procedures for dealing with comments, and please let us not call them complaints and let us also not limit our discussion to comments about the processes used to create input to our process.
>> 
> [MI]: Just to note that I agree .. we should not complicate things, but the suggestions was agreeing on few steps to be followed for EVERY comment received .. Also your valid point regarding complaints have been noted and corrected in the shared draft ..
> 
>> This is somewhat longer than usual, because I take a substantially different position from what I sense our general "mood" is. All that I ask is that each of us hears this argument before we proceed with what may feel comfortable now but could be quite unpleasant in the long run.
>> 
>> 
>> Principles:
>> 
>> Our single task is to produce a proposal document. The one requirement for this document is that it will be acceptable to the Internet community and in particular to NTIA and the operational communities. In other words: we need to come up with a document that has sufficient support to get implemented. NB: All other properties of the document, such as that it results in a working arrangement etc. etc. derive from the acceptability.
>> 
>> Our task is not to respond to all, or even to any, comments made to us. Our task is not to treat everyone equally. Our task is not to be an appeals body for community processes, nor is it to arbitrate in conflicts arising from the process of providing input to us.
>> 
>> Again: Our task is to compose a document that will be acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, others directly involved and the community at large in that order of priority.
>> 
>> 
> [MI]: Please refer to my reply to Patrik .. In addition, although "Our task is not to treat everyone equally" yet it is important that we ensure a trustworthy and credible process .. Frankly, I wouldn't prioritize acceptance of the document and glad the NTIA indicated that "the transition proposal must have broad community support" ..
> 
>> Requirements & Process:
>> 
>> We have derived a number of requirements from the principles in order to receive input that will enable us to produce a document that is acceptable. We are currently executing a process that checks whether these requirements are met by the input we have received up to now from two operational communities. During this process we receive comments via a variety of channels. The only important thing about processing these comments is that we deal with all those that point out reasons why our final document may not be acceptable or how it can be made more acceptable. Anything else is a distraction from our task.
> 
> [MI]: I agree that we may need to deal with certain comments and that why I included this " unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. " but was suggesting that anything else should still be forwarded to the relevant operational community ,,
> 
>> 
>> We have also agreed and stated forcefully that input on both substance and process for the community proposals should be treated within the respective community process. We have further agreed and stated that we will refer comments made to us to the respective community. There are a couple of good reasons for this and we should change that position.
>> 
> [MI]: Agree .. no change in position ..
> 
>> Again: we need to address as a group all those comments that in our judgement raise a point that needs to be addressed in order to make our document acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, other directly involved parties and the Internet community at large. We do not need to address any other comments, or even respond to any comment.
>> 
> [MI]: Again, the suggestion is not for the ICG to address all comments but for the ICG to forward all comments to the relevant operational communities ..
> 
>> Making detailed procedures bears the significant risk of wasting time and energy in meta-discussions that are not needed because we do not need the procedures in the first place. More importantly it bears the risk that these procedures will be abused against us or that we loose credibility by running afoul of them unintentionally or even only allegedly.
>> 
> [MI]: no complex procedure .. only a few straightforward steps (not sure I understand the last sentence)
> 
>> Beyond these my personal experience suggests that the mere existence of a comment procedure encourages comments that would otherwise not be made because there was no guaranteed attention resulting from them.
>> 
> [MI]: Agree but we've already allowed for providing comments on the ICG forum ..
>> 
>> What we should do:
>> 
>> 1) We should point out our forum to the operational communities and other directly involved parties and ask them to participate with their particular responsibility in mind. We should point out that comments in this forum have no special properties and each participant should treat them according to their own judgement and procedures.
>> 
> [MI]: I tried to cover this by the footnote, which by the way could be moved to the beginning of the document ..
> 
>> 2) We should direct comments that we receive via other means to that forum as much as possible in order to have them on the public record and subject to reaction for others.
>> 
> [MI]: Agree
> 
>> 3) If any on us considers that the substance of a comment needs to be addressed by the ICG in order to ensure that our document will be acceptable, they should raise that substance in our deliberations and suggest an action we should take. Possible actions I can imagine are: amend a draft of our document, ask an operational community to consider the question and amend their input to us, ask an operational community to respond to a comment about their process, respond to a comment about the ICG process.
> 
> [MI]: Agree .. and this is the reason for this sentence "unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. "
>> 
>> 3a) This means it will take one of us to raise a question from a comment for us to address it. No comments will be automatically addressed. There will be no "due process" other than our normal ICG process. It also means that all comments are treated absolutely equal.
>> 
> [MI]: Nothing automatically addressed but all automatically forwarded ..
> 
>> 3b) If we remain concerned that we might miss comments that may lead to our document not being acceptable, we can delegate some of us to specifically watch the forum and bring questions that might affect the ultimate acceptability of our document to us.
>> 
> [MI]: No problem .. although I'm always in favor of having as many ICG members as possible participating to any task ..
> 
>> 
>> What we should not do:
>> 
>> We should not define a process for dealing with comments. We should rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them.
>> 
> [MI]: Maybe process was not the right word at the first place .. forwarding comments is not mutually exclusive with " rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them "
> 
> [MI]: Sorry for the long email but I just felt obliged to respond to all points in your message and like you said just to hear each other's arguments before we proceed ..
> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150129/93d93cd3/signature.asc>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list