[Internal-cg] Community Comments Handling Process ..

[Jon Nevett]

Folks:

I would edit one comment below.  I don't think that every comment/complaint requires an answer nor do I think we dictate what the operational communities do in that regard. 

Instead of:
ICG needs to be ensured by the Operational Community(ies) that all comments/complaints have been carefully considered by the corresponding community and the complainant(s) was/were duly answered.

How about this?

"The Operational Communities should carefully consider all comments/complaints and should confirm with the ICG that they have done so."  


Thanks.

Jon

On Jan 31, 2015, at 5:16 PM, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear Mr. Arasteh ..
> Sincere apologies to have overlooked your comments that were sent to me ..
> I have included them in the attached and on Dropbox ..
> Please let me know if this accurately reflects all your comments ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 4:48 PM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: joseph alhadeff; Coordination Group; Daniel Karrenberg
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Community Comments Handling Process ..
>  
> Manal,
> I sent you my comments in two forms
> One a clean text
> the other texts with revision marks
> Have you kindly considered and took them into account
> The points that I raised are important and should be reflected in the texts
> Kavouss
>  
> 2015-01-31 13:03 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
> 
> 
> I remain unconvinced that we need such a procedure.
> 
> There is no need to respond to individual comments. It is sufficient to note that the ICG is paying attention to the forum.
> 
> There is no need to forward any comments to anyone. The forum is public and anyone can read it. It is sufficient to point those we wish to take action based on comments to the forum.
> 
> We can always request specific actions from anyone.
> 
> On the other hand the procedure creates risks of abuse and bad press for us.
> 
> Thus we should not implement this procedure.
> 
> 
> Details:
> 
> 1 - Alert
> This serves no essential purpose as we are all aware of the forum. as written it causes the secretariat to forward, and thus multiply, spam.
> 
> 2 - Acknowledge
> This serves no essential purpose as the commenter can check whether their comment appears in the forum themselves. It creates a risk for error because it assumes the secretariat can reliably determine what in fact is spam. While I agree with Martin that "common courtesy" is desirable this does not justify the additional effort and the risk.
> 
> 3 - Forward
> This serves no essential purpose as the OCs can read the public forum. It involves an unnecessary decision about what is spam and which operational community is relevant together with the associated risks for abuse and error. We can make the suggestion without forwarding individual comments.
> 
> 4 - Follow-up
> This is not really part of a (new) procedure. We can state this publicly without calling it "procedure".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>  
> <Community Comments Handling Process - 29Jan14-alc-ka.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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/20150131/3e491800/attachment-0001.html>