All, Although we are an open process, I would like to discourage cc:ing *this* list on other mailing lists, for example the ones where communities do discuss their respective proposals that ultimately might end up on our table. Those proposals should later be submitted to us via some contact mechanism that is to be defined. This so that we can clearly know and understand what feedback we really have got, that can be included in the various summaries we create, and conclusions we draw from the coordination. Yes, people will, and have, cc:ed this list. In one case the posting was rejected but forwarded to this list. I think that is wrong, and that we when we remember should remove this list when we respond to threads where this list has been added. I want to use this list for our internal discussions and processes. Am I completely off? Patrik
On 2/08/2014 5:30 p.m., Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
Although we are an open process, I would like to discourage cc:ing *this* list on other mailing lists, for example the ones where communities do discuss their respective proposals that ultimately might end up on our table. Those proposals should later be submitted to us via some contact mechanism that is to be defined. This so that we can clearly know and understand what feedback we really have got, that can be included in the various summaries we create, and conclusions we draw from the coordination.
Yes, people will, and have, cc:ed this list. In one case the posting was rejected but forwarded to this list. I think that is wrong, and that we when we remember should remove this list when we respond to threads where this list has been added.
I want to use this list for our internal discussions and processes.
Am I completely off?
I think you are right on Patrik - and fully support the points you have raised. Cheers Keith
good points. agreed. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 2 Aug 2014, at 3:30 pm, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
Although we are an open process, I would like to discourage cc:ing *this* list on other mailing lists, for example the ones where communities do discuss their respective proposals that ultimately might end up on our table. Those proposals should later be submitted to us via some contact mechanism that is to be defined. This so that we can clearly know and understand what feedback we really have got, that can be included in the various summaries we create, and conclusions we draw from the coordination.
Yes, people will, and have, cc:ed this list. In one case the posting was rejected but forwarded to this list. I think that is wrong, and that we when we remember should remove this list when we respond to threads where this list has been added.
I want to use this list for our internal discussions and processes.
Am I completely off?
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On Aug 2, 2014, at 09:30 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Although we are an open process, I would like to discourage cc:ing *this* list on other mailing lists, for example the ones where communities do discuss their respective proposals that ultimately might end up on our table. Those proposals should later be submitted to us via some contact mechanism that is to be defined. This so that we can clearly know and understand what feedback we really have got, that can be included in the various summaries we create, and conclusions we draw from the coordination.
You are absolutely right and I second this. - a.
I also fully agree with Patrik and believe Mohamed has also made a similar comment earlier .. Kind regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 7:50 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Mailing list behaviour On Aug 2, 2014, at 09:30 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Although we are an open process, I would like to discourage cc:ing *this* list on other mailing lists, for example the ones where communities do discuss their respective proposals that ultimately might end up on our table. Those proposals should later be submitted to us via some contact mechanism that is to be defined. This so that we can clearly know and understand what feedback we really have got, that can be included in the various summaries we create, and conclusions we draw from the coordination.
You are absolutely right and I second this. - a.
Thank you Patrik for bringing this up. The members of our Coordination Group represent different things, in varying degrees: user communities, technical bodies, clients of the IANA functions, sovereign states, companies that have some interest in the outcome of Transition. As a result, it is not realistic to expect or demand a single, unified "mailing list behaviour". For example, an executive from a business company may be expected to forward to his/her superiors whatever he/she thinks is in that company's interest, and we won't stop that. On the other hand, if that person is endowed with executive powers, he/she may not feel it necessary to pass on information considered of a subordinate level. As for members of the GAC, can you imagine someone from, say, the Asia-Pacific region speaking/writing on behalf of all the very contrasted governments in that region, without referring back? In the case of the At-Large, I make sure not to add anything to our CG mailing list, but to simply forward separately. My take-aways is this: - we should observe the rule you suggested of not adding cc: directly ON our list, nor in reverse. - While attracting the attention of CG members to the points you made (thank you Patrik), we have to accept that certain representatives have obligations towards their community, employer or principal, provided this is done on their SEPARATE lists, and by exercising due judgment. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel@afrinic.net>, "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 4 Août 2014 09:59:40 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Mailing list behaviour I also fully agree with Patrik and believe Mohamed has also made a similar comment earlier .. Kind regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 7:50 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Mailing list behaviour On Aug 2, 2014, at 09:30 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
Although we are an open process, I would like to discourage cc:ing *this* list on other mailing lists, for example the ones where communities do discuss their respective proposals that ultimately might end up on our table. Those proposals should later be submitted to us via some contact mechanism that is to be defined. This so that we can clearly know and understand what feedback we really have got, that can be included in the various summaries we create, and conclusions we draw from the coordination.
You are absolutely right and I second this. - a. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 4 aug 2014, at 10:00, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
My take-aways is this: - we should observe the rule you suggested of not adding cc: directly ON our list, nor in reverse. - While attracting the attention of CG members to the points you made (thank you Patrik), we have to accept that certain representatives have obligations towards their community, employer or principal, provided this is done on their SEPARATE lists, and by exercising due judgment.
I might misunderstand you, but I am not against passing on what we say on this list. The contrary! The list archives are available and I know many people follow us closely. Including GNSO, ALAC members and more -- because I get privately questions from them. But just because the material on this list is available elsewhere I just think the parties communicating on this list should as much as possible be participants on this mailing list (only). We should not have this list as "the communication medium other parties use". We should have _other_ well functioning communication mechanisms for parties to contact us. Patrik
participants (6)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Keith Davidson -
Manal Ismail -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques