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@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@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@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

 

<Community Comments Handling Process - 29Jan14-alc-ka.docx>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg