Thanks Mr. Arasteh .. Noted ..
Comments inline below ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group
Subject: Re: Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process
complaints]
Manal
Others
Dear Manal,
Thank you very much for your thorough and comprehensive analysis.
Thank you for the options you have proposed .
My comments are the following
1. We better not to refer to "
Complaint" but " comments" or " opnion " or
" views"
[MI]: This has already been taken care of in the draft (should
we decide to follow this approach), which now refers to comments/input .. Yet I
have noticed the following highlighted and underlined words submitted in you
text, please let me know if you want to change/delete them or feel free to do
that yourself in Dropbox:
-
The ICG will suggest
that the community carefully handle the comments as if they were made inside
their process and address them as they normally would and inform the complainant(s) accordingly
.
-
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
2. We better not to refer that a given community
" violated " r ather to say that " comments were received
claiming/ indicating that certain preocedure were apparently not thoroughly
followed " in that case we just act as narating the case rather than
making any judgement.
[MI]: inserted within the suggested handling options below
without the full description .. Hope this is ok ..
3. ICG should dedclare or indicate that the attention
of the community for the report of which comments were received was drawn
to the comments received/ submitted in requesting to take necessary
actions, as appropriate including providing the required clarification to
the commenter with aview to resolve the matter ,to the extent
practiceable, in a satisfactory manner.
and sending a copy to the results of review to
ICG
The ICG actions to be a) in full compliance with the terms
and conditions as stipulated in its Charter and b) be concise, precise with out
any judgemnet on specific issue including the substance of the matter .
[MI]: inserted within the suggested handling options below .. Hope
this is ok ..
The above course of action stems from my long
expereince in internattional consensus building enviroment.
Kavouss
2015-02-01 10:50 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
I feel that we
almost agree on what should be done but disagree on how we should do it .. I
believe, but stand to be corrected, that the below, sort of overarching
principles, has been already agreed at the beginning of the process:
1 –
"that the work was going to be done in the operating communities
and," [Lynn]
2 – "that
there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in place which were
known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing them to arrive at
their proposals." [Lynn]
3 – "the fine
line we have to walk is to not replace the communities' judgement with our
own" [Joe]
We have already
accepted to receive direct comments from the community .. I feel, and again
stand to be corrected, that there is some agreement along the following lines:
1 – "We should
read all the comments." [Daniel]
2 – "We should
take action on the substance from comments that we consider relevant for producing
an acceptable document. [Daniel]
3 – "Of course
we will observe what the OCs do with comments about the substance of their
responses or their procedures. If we determine that action by an OC is needed
we can decide to request it, via our normal process." [Daniel]
How? I
think this is the question we are debating .. What is the mechanism to observe
what the OCs do with comments?
In an
earlier message, I've tried to list all possible categories of comments we may
receive, but I believe Patrik has concisely and accurately described them as
follows:
a.
"The process OC use is flawed and that is pointed out to us."
[Patrik] .. My
understanding is that nothing we can do here, based on Lynn (2) above ..
b.
"The process OC use is ok, but not applied correctly (i.e. violated by the
OC themselves)." [Patrik] .. I believe this implies a process/substance
problem .. And this is where I believe we may need a response based on Daniel
(2) & (3) above and bearing in mind Joe (3) above ..
c.
"The process OC use is ok, applied correctly, but someone is not happy
with the result." [Patrik] .. My understanding is that nothing we can do
here, since the person her/himself admits the agreed process has been followed
..
So what is the
mechanism to observe what the OCs do with comments of category (b) .. Are the
below suggestions (not alternatives) agreed?
"It would help
ICG's process if timelines for responses are determined and communicated to the
community in question." [Mary]
"highlight if
we believe that the comment addresses a missing element of the
application." [Joe]
"The
Operational Communities should carefully consider all comments/complaints and
should confirm with the ICG that they have done so." [Jon]
"we
just act as narrating the case rather than making any judgement." [Kavouss]
"ICG should
declare or indicate that the attention of the community for the report of which
comments were received was drawn to the comments received/
submitted in requesting to take necessary actions, as appropriate including
providing the required clarification to the commenter with a view to
resolve the matter ,to the extent practicable, in a satisfactory manner and
sending a copy to the results of review to ICG" [Kavouss]
"The
ICG actions to be a) in full compliance with the terms and conditions as
stipulated in its Charter and b) be concise, precise without any judgemnet on
specific issue including the substance of the matter." [Kavouss]
I believe all we
need is to have a common understanding on how we will do things in a consistent
and predictable manner..
Hope this helps us
to converge .. Apologies for yet another long email but at least it spares you
multiple separate replies J
!!
Kind Regards
--Manal