Thanks Lynn and thanks Joseph .. This is extremely helpful .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:45 AM To: internal-cg@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@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Comments, short ones :), inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg