The only addition I would make is to highlight if we believe that the comment addresses a missing element of the application. Recall that in our own process we have an obligation to be responsive to the applicant related to things that may be incomplete of missing in the application... On 1/29/2015 4:31 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:

Dear All,

I want to first apologize for being unable to fully participate in the call yesterday. I am in agreement with the proposal from Manal on responses to comments on handling community process. I think ICG's task ends when such comments are forwarded to the relevant community, the onus lies with the community to respond and fix any concerns that are highlighted by the commenter in line with the ICG RFP. It would help ICG's process if timelines for responses are determined and communicated to the community in question. Thank you Manal Mary Uduma

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:28 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:

Dear All .. Please find attached an initial draft which I hope grasps the essence of what has been discussed on the call yesterday .. Thought to await your feedback first before adding on Dropbox .. Kind Regards --Manal

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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

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

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

Ah, Daniel. No need to acknowledge communications at all; the people who send them can see them pop up on a web archive. And because they exist somewhere on an archive, we of course can assume that everyone reads them (after all, they have nothing else to do). And the OCs who may be the subject of the concern to begin with can be assumed to take them as seriously as they need to because, well, they are sitting there on a web archive. Sorry, but if we wanted to do a more thorough job of making it appear as if we don't give a damn about any objections or questions the procedure you describe is perfect. These are people, not machines, and it is a political process in which legitimacy is important, not a deterministic handshake in a data communication protocol. I think we have to make it clear that we are doing due diligence. I understand your concern I think the risks of your approach are massively larger than some kind of simply ack and forwarding.

-----Original Message----- 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.

Actually, some of us do not spend 24 hours a day monitoring these forums.

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

Dear Daniel, Dear All, Yes we are not appeal body, but we represent the 13 ICANN community and our Charter allow us to request the Operational Community to duly and carefully examine the " concerns " or " Comments " received and provide answers7 clarification or justification for action was taken and make remedial action ,if and where required. Regards Kavouss t 2015-02-02 8:59 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

On 1.02.15 19:30 , Milton L Mueller wrote:

Milton,

you understood my points completely. I am confident that the OCs, having spent considerable effort and process to create their proposals, will publicly respond to substantial comments.

Yes we are dealing with people. And just because we are dealing with people we have to be careful not to create the impression that the ICG is an appeals body with an obligation for due process and an obligation to respond to each and every comment.

Daniel

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear Daniel, Tks for confirmation. One possible way would be that we send the following to the concerned operating community ICG has received information from a member of community that " insert the claim" You are kindly request to carefully examine the matter and provide clarifications/ comments/counter argument to the submitting entity and forward a copy to ICG for any required action, as appropriate There may be different language instead Regards Kavouss 2015-02-02 16:00 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

kavouss,

i fully agree with that. and i have explicitly said that at least two times. again: i absolutely agree that we can decide to ask an explicit question to an oc using our normal process. it requires an icg member to suggest it and the icg to decide to do it using our normal process.

daniel

---------- Sent from a hand held device.

On 02.02.2015, at 13:30, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Daniel, Dear All, Yes we are not appeal body, but we represent the 13 ICANN community and our Charter allow us to request the Operational Community to duly and carefully examine the " concerns " or " Comments " received and provide answers7 clarification or justification for action was taken and make remedial action ,if and where required. Regards Kavouss t

2015-02-02 8:59 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

...

On 1.02.15 19:30 , Milton L Mueller wrote:

Milton,

you understood my points completely. I am confident that the OCs, having spent considerable effort and process to create their proposals, will publicly respond to substantial comments.

Yes we are dealing with people. And just because we are dealing with people we have to be careful not to create the impression that the ICG is an appeals body with an obligation for due process and an obligation to respond to each and every comment.

Daniel

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg