In thinking about the process complaints process :-) we should be careful to not just consider the current step but also steps a bit further forward. If you think about the full scope of the transition, there will be some number of people that will disagree. As we expand the circle of people commenting on this, and as we get further away from the current core group of people who know this stuff reasonably well, in those further steps we are likely to run into mistaken assumptions and maybe even some that disagree on principle. As we run an open process, it is important that we keep the “broad agreement is what matters” principle in our minds, and do not set ourselves up for doing a lot of work if anyone in the world asks us to. Re-opening of a debate lost in a earlier in the consensus process is a real danger*. I think the key aspects of looking at complaints of any sort are checking (a) whether the process was run as needed and (b) whether the specific issue was is in scope and whether it was considered. The former is something that we can do in a general sense, as opposed to running an investigation on every point someone isn’t in agreement. The latter is hopefully relatively quick, unless we indeed spot something that was not considered. Jari *) In the IETF we have some experience of appeals processes, and one of the challenges in that process is that you have to balance making sure that you’ve not made a mistake with accidentally giving too much weight to one opinion over the community opinion. Just because some one screams “appeal” does not mean that we have to give more weight to the opinion. We have to look at all opinions with the same weight, and if we missed an issue and that is raised in an appeal, we need to fix it. But otherwise, appeals are not a way for a person to change informed community consensus.

Thanks Alissa for adding this to the agenda and to enlightening comments received so far ..It's crucial that we continue to be transparent consistent and predictable throughout the handling of all complaints .. Having said that, I feel I'm not that clear about a few things and hope you wouldn't mind my below questions .. Generally speaking: 1. Are we going to forward every complaint, formally, to the relevant Operational Community (OC)? Or depend on their accessibility on the web? 2. Are we going to reply to the complainer? how his/her complaint was considered? reasons for the ICG decision? More specifically, I think we may run into one of the following situations: 1. Complaints submitted for the first time directly to the ICG (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC) 2. Complaints submitted to the ICG by way of a complaint/escalation (How to handle? forward formally to the relevant OC? expect an answer from the relevant OC? go through the mailing lists and dig the answer? …) a. Complaints about the substance of the proposal i. Something overlooked (My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC) ii. Something out of scope (How to handle? Who should decide?) iii. A point of view that did not make it to the submitted proposal (How to handle? decide whether it gained consensus, as defined by the OP? check whether the consensus process was followed? …) b. Complaints about the process followed i. Not happy with the process as defined by the OC (nothing we can do) ii. Process was not followed (How to prove? How to handle?) Apologies for the long message .. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion on the call later today .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:19 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints I think we are not in disagreement about what options are given to handle the complaints. At least the numbering Community (CRISP) pointed out on their respective mailing list that they expect guidance from the ICG. We should discuss it tomorrow. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:38 PM To: Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints Alissa, You mentioned that you did not undertstand me . I repeat what I said. 1.It seems that we have received commubnity process compèlaints . 2. You want to discuss how we should handle these compklaints 3 These complaints were sent to the operating communitites 4 We need to establish deadline to receivive replies from operating communities 5. You wish to establish deadline for receiving complaints . 6. Once we decide on that, we have to make a statement informing the communities to send comments .if any within that deadline 7. We will send the additional complaints, if any to operating community 8. We need to establish another dealine or maintain the same deadliner to receivive replies from operating communities for the second and last complaints 9. icg NEED TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE REPLIES FROM OPERATING COMMUNITIES INCLUDING THEIR COMMENTS ON COMPLAINTS I hope that it would be clear now Regards Kavouss 2015-01-26 22:32 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: I’ve included an item on the draft agenda for the January 28 call about handling community process complaints. We have received a few: Richard Hill on IETF process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html Richard Hill on RIR process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html Guru Acharya on RIR process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html And there are some follow-up messages that you can see on the forum. http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ I’ve been forwarding these to the appropriate communities, but I think we need to be a little clearer about what we are expecting here. If we want responses from the communities, we should ask for them directly. If we go down that route, we should probably set a deadline for receiving complaints about this first phase of the process so that we can give the communities clear guidance about what they need to respond to and when. We can discuss this on the call but I wanted to get the discussion going on the mailing list first. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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

Dear Jari, Dear AllAs , You said that "we run an open process" but one of the complaint is that it was not an open process. Moreover not every body in ICG is thinking like each other. Then we need to wait for manal to prepare a Framework and then we comment and proceed Kavouss 2015-01-28 15:23 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

On 28.01.15 8:59 , Manal Ismail wrote:

...

Thanks Alissa for adding this to the agenda and to enlightening comments received so far ..It's crucial that we continue to be transparent consistent and predictable throughout the handling of all complaints ..

Having said that, I feel I'm not that clear about a few things and hope you wouldn't mind my below questions ..

Generally speaking:

1.Are we going to forward every complaint, formally, to the relevant Operational Community (OC)? Or depend on their accessibility on the web?

We should point the OCs to the forum and sugest that they monitor it and pick up any comments relevant to them. This does not prevent us to point out any comments we consider relevant. This way we are not in the business of filtering and yet we make sure nothing we consider relevant is overlooked by the OCs.

2.Are we going to reply to the complainer? how his/her complaint was

...

considered? reasons for the ICG decision?

If a comment is addressed at the ICG explicitly we should consider it explicitly and decide how we act. In that case the procedure should be to acknowledge that we are dealing with it and to describe how we do that. E.g. "Thank you for your comment; the ICG will discuss it at their meeting on .....".

If a comment is general or addressed to an OC we do not need to acknowledge it.

...

More specifically, I think we may run into one of the following situations:

1.Complaints submitted for the first time directly to the ICG

(My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)

yes

2.Complaints submitted to the ICG by way of a complaint/escalation

...

(How to handle? forward formally to the relevant OC? expect an answer from the relevant OC? go through the mailing lists and dig the answer? …)

We are not an arbitration body! The only thing such a comment could do is raise questions by *ourselves*. This involves a judgement call on our part on whether we consider the comment justifying our action.

If we let go of that principle we are muddying the waters and open ourselves to all sorets of unpleasantness.

Yes, it means we have to make a decision on whether the comment has enough substance for our action. But we cannot avoid that in any case.

a.Complaints about the substance of the proposal

...

i.Something overlooked

(My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)

Yes.

...

ii.Something out of scope (How to handle? Who should decide?)

See above. If someone comments an OC proposal is mission creeping this should be addressed by the OC. They should say why it is in scope. If the conflict persists we have to make a decision on how to resolve that in the combined proposal.

iii.A point of view that did not make it to the submitted proposal

...

(How to handle? decide whether it gained consensus, as defined by the OP? check whether the consensus process was followed? …)

See above. The OC needs to defend their process. We have to evaluate the proposal and the process. We can do that without passing explicit judgement each and every comment. Again: we are not an arbitration body that has to give an opinion to each specific case before it.

...

b.Complaints about the process followed

is semantically the same as above

i.Not happy with the process as defined by the OC (nothing we can do)

...

how is this different from above?

ii.Process was not followed (How to prove? How to handle?)

...

again the same as above.

I'll try to synthesize in a separate message.

Daniel

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

Manal, colleagues, let me explain why I believe we should not define detailed procedures for dealing with comments, and please let us not call them complaints and let us also not limit our discussion to comments about the processes used to create input to our process. This is somewhat longer than usual, because I take a substantially different position from what I sense our general "mood" is. All that I ask is that each of us hears this argument before we proceed with what may feel comfortable now but could be quite unpleasant in the long run. Principles: Our single task is to produce a proposal document. The one requirement for this document is that it will be acceptable to the Internet community and in particular to NTIA and the operational communities. In other words: we need to come up with a document that has sufficient support to get implemented. NB: All other properties of the document, such as that it results in a working arrangement etc. etc. derive from the acceptability. Our task is not to respond to all, or even to any, comments made to us. Our task is not to treat everyone equally. Our task is not to be an appeals body for community processes, nor is it to arbitrate in conflicts arising from the process of providing input to us. Again: Our task is to compose a document that will be acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, others directly involved and the community at large in that order of priority. Requirements & Process: We have derived a number of requirements from the principles in order to receive input that will enable us to produce a document that is acceptable. We are currently executing a process that checks whether these requirements are met by the input we have received up to now from two operational communities. During this process we receive comments via a variety of channels. The only important thing about processing these comments is that we deal with all those that point out reasons why our final document may not be acceptable or how it can be made more acceptable. Anything else is a distraction from our task. We have also agreed and stated forcefully that input on both substance and process for the community proposals should be treated within the respective community process. We have further agreed and stated that we will refer comments made to us to the respective community. There are a couple of good reasons for this and we should change that position. Again: we need to address as a group all those comments that in our judgement raise a point that needs to be addressed in order to make our document acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, other directly involved parties and the Internet community at large. We do not need to address any other comments, or even respond to any comment. Making detailed procedures bears the significant risk of wasting time and energy in meta-discussions that are not needed because we do not need the procedures in the first place. More importantly it bears the risk that these procedures will be abused against us or that we loose credibility by running afoul of them unintentionally or even only allegedly. Beyond these my personal experience suggests that the mere existence of a comment procedure encourages comments that would otherwise not be made because there was no guaranteed attention resulting from them. What we should do: 1) We should point out our forum to the operational communities and other directly involved parties and ask them to participate with their particular responsibility in mind. We should point out that comments in this forum have no special properties and each participant should treat them according to their own judgement and procedures. 2) We should direct comments that we receive via other means to that forum as much as possible in order to have them on the public record and subject to reaction for others. 3) If any on us considers that the substance of a comment needs to be addressed by the ICG in order to ensure that our document will be acceptable, they should raise that substance in our deliberations and suggest an action we should take. Possible actions I can imagine are: amend a draft of our document, ask an operational community to consider the question and amend their input to us, ask an operational community to respond to a comment about their process, respond to a comment about the ICG process. 3a) This means it will take one of us to raise a question from a comment for us to address it. No comments will be automatically addressed. There will be no "due process" other than our normal ICG process. It also means that all comments are treated absolutely equal. 3b) If we remain concerned that we might miss comments that may lead to our document not being acceptable, we can delegate some of us to specifically watch the forum and bring questions that might affect the ultimate acceptability of our document to us. What we should not do: We should not define a process for dealing with comments. We should rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them. Daniel

Many thanks Daniel for your thorough email .. To make sure I address all the points you've raised, please find my responses inline below .. Thanks Patrik for your reply, which I've also responded to, inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:16 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints This makes to me a lot of sense. Our job is to produce an acceptable document. [MI]: Agree .. Not fall into the trap of responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of the operational communities. [MI]: I don't think anyone suggested that the ICG respond to comments submitted .. The suggestion was forwarding them to the relevant operational communities which I thought to be non-controversial, and consider their response .. In most cases it is probably the case that the question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or similar arrangements). [MI]: Fair enough .. this would be an equally informative response to receive from the relevant operational community .. We should stay by following our process and do our work and answer questions on our process. [MI]: Fair enough .. but our process allowed for receiving comments .. and we should agree to either forward all, or forward none, or if we are to forward some then at least this has to be based on some agreed criteria .. If I recall correctly, we have already forwarded one .. Patrik

On 29 Jan 2015, at 12:15, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:

Manal, colleagues,

let me explain why I believe we should not define detailed procedures for dealing with comments, and please let us not call them complaints and let us also not limit our discussion to comments about the processes used to create input to our process.

[MI]: Just to note that I agree .. we should not complicate things, but the suggestions was agreeing on few steps to be followed for EVERY comment received .. Also your valid point regarding complaints have been noted and corrected in the shared draft ..

This is somewhat longer than usual, because I take a substantially different position from what I sense our general "mood" is. All that I ask is that each of us hears this argument before we proceed with what may feel comfortable now but could be quite unpleasant in the long run.

Principles:

Our single task is to produce a proposal document. The one requirement for this document is that it will be acceptable to the Internet community and in particular to NTIA and the operational communities. In other words: we need to come up with a document that has sufficient support to get implemented. NB: All other properties of the document, such as that it results in a working arrangement etc. etc. derive from the acceptability.

Our task is not to respond to all, or even to any, comments made to us. Our task is not to treat everyone equally. Our task is not to be an appeals body for community processes, nor is it to arbitrate in conflicts arising from the process of providing input to us.

Again: Our task is to compose a document that will be acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, others directly involved and the community at large in that order of priority.

[MI]: Please refer to my reply to Patrik .. In addition, although "Our task is not to treat everyone equally" yet it is important that we ensure a trustworthy and credible process .. Frankly, I wouldn't prioritize acceptance of the document and glad the NTIA indicated that "the transition proposal must have broad community support" ..

Requirements & Process:

We have derived a number of requirements from the principles in order to receive input that will enable us to produce a document that is acceptable. We are currently executing a process that checks whether these requirements are met by the input we have received up to now from two operational communities. During this process we receive comments via a variety of channels. The only important thing about processing these comments is that we deal with all those that point out reasons why our final document may not be acceptable or how it can be made more acceptable. Anything else is a distraction from our task.

[MI]: I agree that we may need to deal with certain comments and that why I included this " unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. " but was suggesting that anything else should still be forwarded to the relevant operational community ,,

We have also agreed and stated forcefully that input on both substance and process for the community proposals should be treated within the respective community process. We have further agreed and stated that we will refer comments made to us to the respective community. There are a couple of good reasons for this and we should change that position.

[MI]: Agree .. no change in position ..

Again: we need to address as a group all those comments that in our judgement raise a point that needs to be addressed in order to make our document acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, other directly involved parties and the Internet community at large. We do not need to address any other comments, or even respond to any comment.

[MI]: Again, the suggestion is not for the ICG to address all comments but for the ICG to forward all comments to the relevant operational communities ..

Making detailed procedures bears the significant risk of wasting time and energy in meta-discussions that are not needed because we do not need the procedures in the first place. More importantly it bears the risk that these procedures will be abused against us or that we loose credibility by running afoul of them unintentionally or even only allegedly.

[MI]: no complex procedure .. only a few straightforward steps (not sure I understand the last sentence)

Beyond these my personal experience suggests that the mere existence of a comment procedure encourages comments that would otherwise not be made because there was no guaranteed attention resulting from them.

[MI]: Agree but we've already allowed for providing comments on the ICG forum ..

What we should do:

1) We should point out our forum to the operational communities and other directly involved parties and ask them to participate with their particular responsibility in mind. We should point out that comments in this forum have no special properties and each participant should treat them according to their own judgement and procedures.

[MI]: I tried to cover this by the footnote, which by the way could be moved to the beginning of the document ..

2) We should direct comments that we receive via other means to that forum as much as possible in order to have them on the public record and subject to reaction for others.

[MI]: Agree

3) If any on us considers that the substance of a comment needs to be addressed by the ICG in order to ensure that our document will be acceptable, they should raise that substance in our deliberations and suggest an action we should take. Possible actions I can imagine are: amend a draft of our document, ask an operational community to consider the question and amend their input to us, ask an operational community to respond to a comment about their process, respond to a comment about the ICG process.

[MI]: Agree .. and this is the reason for this sentence "unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. "

3a) This means it will take one of us to raise a question from a comment for us to address it. No comments will be automatically addressed. There will be no "due process" other than our normal ICG process. It also means that all comments are treated absolutely equal.

[MI]: Nothing automatically addressed but all automatically forwarded ..

3b) If we remain concerned that we might miss comments that may lead to our document not being acceptable, we can delegate some of us to specifically watch the forum and bring questions that might affect the ultimate acceptability of our document to us.

[MI]: No problem .. although I'm always in favor of having as many ICG members as possible participating to any task ..

What we should not do:

We should not define a process for dealing with comments. We should rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them.

[MI]: Maybe process was not the right word at the first place .. forwarding comments is not mutually exclusive with " rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them " [MI]: Sorry for the long email but I just felt obliged to respond to all points in your message and like you said just to hear each other's arguments before we proceed ..

Daniel

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

Thanks Patrik .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:48 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints Thank you Manal, As Daniel explained, we have managed to mix up two (at least) different issues here. :-) Yes, I agree we of course must have a plan for all comments that come to us. I think Alissa has explained, given our input, a very good path forward on how to act on them. Best, Patrik

On 29 jan 2015, at 21:40, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:

Many thanks Daniel for your thorough email .. To make sure I address all the points you've raised, please find my responses inline below .. Thanks Patrik for your reply, which I've also responded to, inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal

-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:16 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

This makes to me a lot of sense.

Our job is to produce an acceptable document. [MI]: Agree ..

Not fall into the trap of responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of the operational communities. [MI]: I don't think anyone suggested that the ICG respond to comments submitted .. The suggestion was forwarding them to the relevant operational communities which I thought to be non-controversial, and consider their response ..

In most cases it is probably the case that the question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or similar arrangements). [MI]: Fair enough .. this would be an equally informative response to receive from the relevant operational community ..

We should stay by following our process and do our work and answer questions on our process. [MI]: Fair enough .. but our process allowed for receiving comments .. and we should agree to either forward all, or forward none, or if we are to forward some then at least this has to be based on some agreed criteria .. If I recall correctly, we have already forwarded one ..

Patrik

...

On 29 Jan 2015, at 12:15, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:

Manal, colleagues,

let me explain why I believe we should not define detailed procedures for dealing with comments, and please let us not call them complaints and let us also not limit our discussion to comments about the processes used to create input to our process.

[MI]: Just to note that I agree .. we should not complicate things, but the suggestions was agreeing on few steps to be followed for EVERY comment received .. Also your valid point regarding complaints have been noted and corrected in the shared draft ..

...

This is somewhat longer than usual, because I take a substantially different position from what I sense our general "mood" is. All that I ask is that each of us hears this argument before we proceed with what may feel comfortable now but could be quite unpleasant in the long run.

Principles:

Our single task is to produce a proposal document. The one requirement for this document is that it will be acceptable to the Internet community and in particular to NTIA and the operational communities. In other words: we need to come up with a document that has sufficient support to get implemented. NB: All other properties of the document, such as that it results in a working arrangement etc. etc. derive from the acceptability.

Our task is not to respond to all, or even to any, comments made to us. Our task is not to treat everyone equally. Our task is not to be an appeals body for community processes, nor is it to arbitrate in conflicts arising from the process of providing input to us.

Again: Our task is to compose a document that will be acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, others directly involved and the community at large in that order of priority.

[MI]: Please refer to my reply to Patrik .. In addition, although "Our task is not to treat everyone equally" yet it is important that we ensure a trustworthy and credible process .. Frankly, I wouldn't prioritize acceptance of the document and glad the NTIA indicated that "the transition proposal must have broad community support" ..

...

Requirements & Process:

We have derived a number of requirements from the principles in order to receive input that will enable us to produce a document that is acceptable. We are currently executing a process that checks whether these requirements are met by the input we have received up to now from two operational communities. During this process we receive comments via a variety of channels. The only important thing about processing these comments is that we deal with all those that point out reasons why our final document may not be acceptable or how it can be made more acceptable. Anything else is a distraction from our task.

[MI]: I agree that we may need to deal with certain comments and that why I included this " unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. " but was suggesting that anything else should still be forwarded to the relevant operational community ,,

...

We have also agreed and stated forcefully that input on both substance and process for the community proposals should be treated within the respective community process. We have further agreed and stated that we will refer comments made to us to the respective community. There are a couple of good reasons for this and we should change that position.

[MI]: Agree .. no change in position ..

...

Again: we need to address as a group all those comments that in our judgement raise a point that needs to be addressed in order to make our document acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, other directly involved parties and the Internet community at large. We do not need to address any other comments, or even respond to any comment.

[MI]: Again, the suggestion is not for the ICG to address all comments but for the ICG to forward all comments to the relevant operational communities ..

...

Making detailed procedures bears the significant risk of wasting time and energy in meta-discussions that are not needed because we do not need the procedures in the first place. More importantly it bears the risk that these procedures will be abused against us or that we loose credibility by running afoul of them unintentionally or even only allegedly.

[MI]: no complex procedure .. only a few straightforward steps (not sure I understand the last sentence)

...

Beyond these my personal experience suggests that the mere existence of a comment procedure encourages comments that would otherwise not be made because there was no guaranteed attention resulting from them.

[MI]: Agree but we've already allowed for providing comments on the ICG forum ..

...

What we should do:

1) We should point out our forum to the operational communities and other directly involved parties and ask them to participate with their particular responsibility in mind. We should point out that comments in this forum have no special properties and each participant should treat them according to their own judgement and procedures.

[MI]: I tried to cover this by the footnote, which by the way could be moved to the beginning of the document ..

...

2) We should direct comments that we receive via other means to that forum as much as possible in order to have them on the public record and subject to reaction for others.

[MI]: Agree

...

3) If any on us considers that the substance of a comment needs to be addressed by the ICG in order to ensure that our document will be acceptable, they should raise that substance in our deliberations and suggest an action we should take. Possible actions I can imagine are: amend a draft of our document, ask an operational community to consider the question and amend their input to us, ask an operational community to respond to a comment about their process, respond to a comment about the ICG process.

[MI]: Agree .. and this is the reason for this sentence "unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. "

...

3a) This means it will take one of us to raise a question from a comment for us to address it. No comments will be automatically addressed. There will be no "due process" other than our normal ICG process. It also means that all comments are treated absolutely equal.

[MI]: Nothing automatically addressed but all automatically forwarded ..

...

3b) If we remain concerned that we might miss comments that may lead to our document not being acceptable, we can delegate some of us to specifically watch the forum and bring questions that might affect the ultimate acceptability of our document to us.

[MI]: No problem .. although I'm always in favor of having as many ICG members as possible participating to any task ..

...

What we should not do:

We should not define a process for dealing with comments. We should rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them.

[MI]: Maybe process was not the right word at the first place .. forwarding comments is not mutually exclusive with " rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them "

[MI]: Sorry for the long email but I just felt obliged to respond to all points in your message and like you said just to hear each other's arguments before we proceed ..

...

Daniel

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

Dear Daniel, Dear All, let us use the term " concerns" or " comments " instead of complaint Let also us to take everybody's view into account. We need to make compromise and not pushiong for a particular thought Regards Kavouss 2015-01-31 12:20 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

Manal, colleagues,

thank you for your thoughts. What you drafted is much less of a 'complaints procedure' than what I expected based on the discussion at our call. I am still not convinced that we actually need this. I will comment on the draft in a separate message.

<addressing Milton and Kavouss more than Manal> For the sake of our discussion I make absolutely clear that I am not implying that the OC processes will be flawless. I fully expect comments to that effect. In fact we have already observed such comments. I have said explicitly that we absolutely need to address those comments if they raise issues which, in our judgement, will make our document unacceptable. My intention is definitely not to avoid such decisions, to the contrary.

I strongly object to use the word "complaint" because of its meaning as an initial step in a formal procedure or in litigation. By talking about complaints we are raising expectations about a formal process and an obligation to respond and to take specific actions. We are raising these expectations whether we intend to or not. This is why we should not use the word when communicating about process comments. </addressing Milton and Kavouss more than Manal>

I repeat that we should avoid making procedures unless we absolutely need to. In my experience, even small and seemingly benign "procedures" create the risk of abuse and the potential to grow into bureaucratic monsters before we realise it. NB: I am not an anarchist: if we are really convinced of the necessity of a procedure, we should decide to implement one. I argue against doing it without being 100% clear about the need. I am not convinced of the need in this case.

Now for the in-line stuff: ;-)

On 29.01.15 21:40 , Manal Ismail wrote:

...

Many thanks Daniel for your thorough email .. To make sure I address all the points you've raised, please find my responses inline below .. Thanks Patrik for your reply, which I've also responded to, inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal

-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:16 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

This makes to me a lot of sense.

Our job is to produce an acceptable document. [MI]: Agree ..

Not fall into the trap of responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of the operational communities. [MI]: I don't think anyone suggested that the ICG respond to comments submitted .. The suggestion was forwarding them to the relevant operational communities which I thought to be non-controversial, and consider their response ..

In most cases it is probably the case that the question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or similar arrangements). [MI]: Fair enough .. this would be an equally informative response to receive from the relevant operational community ..

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.

...

We should stay by following our process and do our work and answer questions on our process. [MI]: Fair enough .. but our process allowed for receiving comments .. and we should agree to either forward all, or forward none, or if we are to forward some then at least this has to be based on some agreed criteria .. If I recall correctly, we have already forwarded one ..

We should point out the forum to the OCs and the world. We should not respond to or forward any comments via an automatic procedure. We should read all the comments. We should take action on the substance from comments that we consider relevant for producing an acceptable document. Each one of us can raise substance from a comment. We take action based on our process. We do not need a new procedure for that.

...

Patrik

On 29 Jan 2015, at 12:15, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>

...

wrote:

Manal, colleagues,

let me explain why I believe we should not define detailed procedures for dealing with comments, and please let us not call them complaints and let us also not limit our discussion to comments about the processes used to create input to our process.

[MI]: Just to note that I agree .. we should not complicate things, but the suggestions was agreeing on few steps to be followed for EVERY comment received .. Also your valid point regarding complaints have been noted and corrected in the shared draft ..

This is somewhat longer than usual, because I take a substantially

...

different position from what I sense our general "mood" is. All that I ask is that each of us hears this argument before we proceed with what may feel comfortable now but could be quite unpleasant in the long run.

Principles:

Our single task is to produce a proposal document. The one requirement for this document is that it will be acceptable to the Internet community and in particular to NTIA and the operational communities. In other words: we need to come up with a document that has sufficient support to get implemented. NB: All other properties of the document, such as that it results in a working arrangement etc. etc. derive from the acceptability.

Our task is not to respond to all, or even to any, comments made to us. Our task is not to treat everyone equally. Our task is not to be an appeals body for community processes, nor is it to arbitrate in conflicts arising from the process of providing input to us.

Again: Our task is to compose a document that will be acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, others directly involved and the community at large in that order of priority.

[MI]: Please refer to my reply to Patrik .. In addition, although "Our task is not to treat everyone equally" yet it is important that we ensure a trustworthy and credible process .. Frankly, I wouldn't prioritize acceptance of the document and glad the NTIA indicated that "the transition proposal must have broad community support" ..

We have to produce a document that is acceptable to all relevant parties. I

...

Requirements & Process:

...

We have derived a number of requirements from the principles in order to receive input that will enable us to produce a document that is acceptable. We are currently executing a process that checks whether these requirements are met by the input we have received up to now from two operational communities. During this process we receive comments via a variety of channels. The only important thing about processing these comments is that we deal with all those that point out reasons why our final document may not be acceptable or how it can be made more acceptable. Anything else is a distraction from our task.

[MI]: I agree that we may need to deal with certain comments and that why I included this " unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. " but was suggesting that anything else should still be forwarded to the relevant operational community ,,

...

We have also agreed and stated forcefully that input on both substance and process for the community proposals should be treated within the respective community process. We have further agreed and stated that we will refer comments made to us to the respective community. There are a couple of good reasons for this and we should change that position.

[MI]: Agree .. no change in position ..

Again: we need to address as a group all those comments that in our

...

judgement raise a point that needs to be addressed in order to make our document acceptable to NTIA, the operational communities, other directly involved parties and the Internet community at large. We do not need to address any other comments, or even respond to any comment.

[MI]: Again, the suggestion is not for the ICG to address all comments but for the ICG to forward all comments to the relevant operational communities ..

We do not need a procedure for that. We do not even need to forward the comments. We just need to point out the forum. If any of us gets the impression that an OC is ignoring a relevant comment, they can informally tell the OC. If there is still no action and the ICG decides that the substance is relevant, the ICG can decide to request action from the OC.

Making detailed procedures bears the significant risk of wasting time and

...

...

energy in meta-discussions that are not needed because we do not need the procedures in the first place. More importantly it bears the risk that these procedures will be abused against us or that we loose credibility by running afoul of them unintentionally or even only allegedly.

[MI]: no complex procedure .. only a few straightforward steps (not sure I understand the last sentence)

Sorry, that sentence is not really plain English. I sometimes still write for my very British English teacher instead of the intended audience. ;-) Let me try to say it more clearly:

If we make a procedure we have to stick to it, absolutely. An adversary can abuse this because they know what we are going to do. If we make a mistake, even an innocent one, our credibility suffers: "They are not even following their own procedures." That claim can even be made if we did not in fact make any mistakes as long as the adversary can create the perception that we did. All these risks come from the existence of the procedure. No procedure, no such risks.

I agree with the remainder of your comments *if* we decide that we really have to forward comments to the OCs and that we need to have a procedure for that.

...

Beyond these my personal experience suggests that the mere existence of

...

a comment procedure encourages comments that would otherwise not be made because there was no guaranteed attention resulting from them.

[MI]: Agree but we've already allowed for providing comments on the ICG forum ..

...

What we should do:

1) We should point out our forum to the operational communities and other directly involved parties and ask them to participate with their particular responsibility in mind. We should point out that comments in this forum have no special properties and each participant should treat them according to their own judgement and procedures.

[MI]: I tried to cover this by the footnote, which by the way could be

moved to the beginning of the document ..

2) We should direct comments that we receive via other means to that

...

forum as much as possible in order to have them on the public record and subject to reaction for others.

[MI]: Agree

3) If any on us considers that the substance of a comment needs to be

...

addressed by the ICG in order to ensure that our document will be acceptable, they should raise that substance in our deliberations and suggest an action we should take. Possible actions I can imagine are: amend a draft of our document, ask an operational community to consider the question and amend their input to us, ask an operational community to respond to a comment about their process, respond to a comment about the ICG process.

[MI]: Agree .. and this is the reason for this sentence "unless the ICG decides that there is need for further communication with the sender and/or the relevant operational community. "

...

3a) This means it will take one of us to raise a question from a comment for us to address it. No comments will be automatically addressed. There will be no "due process" other than our normal ICG process. It also means that all comments are treated absolutely equal.

[MI]: Nothing automatically addressed but all automatically forwarded ..

3b) If we remain concerned that we might miss comments that may lead to

...

our document not being acceptable, we can delegate some of us to specifically watch the forum and bring questions that might affect the ultimate acceptability of our document to us.

[MI]: No problem .. although I'm always in favor of having as many ICG members as possible participating to any task ..

...

What we should not do:

We should not define a process for dealing with comments. We should rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them.

[MI]: Maybe process was not the right word at the first place .. forwarding comments is not mutually exclusive with " rely on our existing process and on our individual judgement to raise relevant questions and our collective judgement to address them "

[MI]: Sorry for the long email but I just felt obliged to respond to all points in your message and like you said just to hear each other's arguments before we proceed ..

No need to apologise. I started the long message thread.

Daniel

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

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" 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. 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 . 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] *

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

On 1.02.15 13:50 , Manal Ismail wrote:

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] *

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

Very useful indeed. Thank you Manal. Shall we discuss this in the f2f meeting or continue the debate here? Daniel

Dear Manal & All, I will be taking part in the Singapore ICG meeting by remote participation. In the meantime, I would like to offer a remark. Having volunteered to help Manal on how community input and comments should be handled, I was expecting that we would all wait for Manal to send around an initial draft. As we know, things went faster than that. I've not consulted Manal about this, but can easily imagine that keeping track of all our input without a first common reference was not so simple. She's made a very good job of summing up the various suggestions: thank you Manal! May I suggest that in the future, when someone or a small group of colleagues is asked to take on a specific job, we let her/him/them send out her/his/their initial draft, and respond to that? I wish you a very productive and pleasant stay in Singapore! Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: "Coordination Group" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 2 Février 2015 14:03:32 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints] -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:03 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints] On 1.02.15 13:50 , Manal Ismail wrote:

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] *

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

Very useful indeed. Thank you Manal. Shall we discuss this in the f2f meeting or continue the debate here? Daniel Thanks Daniel .. I'm flexible .. Will leave it in the hands of our chairs .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

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. No procedure. No acknowledgements. No forwarding. Agree on posing specific questions using our normal process. 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. Daniel

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

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

Colleagues: I think the fine line we have to walk is to not replace the communities' judgement with our own, but in our RFP we do have a requirement to review their compliance with their own process. If a question/issue/concern/complaint was raised, was it appropriately reviewed and addressed according to the community process. If it was given a fair hearing under that process, then we are not in a position to question the result as it relates to that process, unless it involves one of the other RFP requirements like the NTIA conditions. While each of the communities will hopefully have provided us with information on how they have complied with the NTIA conditions, we are in a position to request further information where they have failed to provide the appropriate information and will have to assess whether those conditions are met in the combined proposal. Best- Joe On 1/30/2015 12:52 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- Our job is to produce an acceptable document. Not fall into the trap of responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of the operational communities. This doesn't make any sense to me, Patrik. Most process complaints or concerns (and yes, Daniel, they ARE complaints) will have been expressed in the operational community but were not adequately answered or resolved, in the minds of the complainants. People send comments to us precisely because we are not the operational community.

...

In most cases it is probably the case that the question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or similar arrangements). Really? This response seems to assume that the OC processes were perfect and no one would ever have cause to dispute them. I can't buy that.

Let me also remind everyone - again - that the RFP was an ICG product, made in response to the NTIA - it was not an operational community product. We required them to be open and inclusive. If someone complains that they were not open and inclusive, we have to make judgments about whether those complaints are worth pursuing by the ICG.

However, on the key issue I think we are in violent agreement. Daniel said it very clearly here:

...

3) If any on us considers that the substance of a comment needs to be addressed by the ICG in order to ensure that our document will be acceptable, they should raise that substance in our deliberations and suggest an action we should take. Possible actions I can imagine are: amend a draft of our document, ask an operational community to consider the question and amend their input to us, ask an operational community to respond to a comment about their process, respond to a comment about the ICG process.

3a) This means it will take one of us to raise a question from a comment for us to address it. No comments will be automatically addressed. There will be no "due process" other than our normal ICG process. It also means that all comments are treated absolutely equal.

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

Dear Patrik I think this is an issue to be taken care by Manal Leave it at her capable hand Kavouss 2015-01-30 17:14 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

On 30 jan 2015, at 06:52, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- Our job is to produce an acceptable document. Not fall into the trap of responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of the operational communities.

This doesn't make any sense to me, Patrik.

Ok, I do think I express myself badly.

...

Most process complaints or concerns (and yes, Daniel, they ARE complaints) will have been expressed in the operational community but were not adequately answered or resolved, in the minds of the complainants. People send comments to us precisely because we are not the operational community.

The devil is in the details. An issue can very well has been taken care of in one of the OC but the individual can still send us a question about it. If the appeals procedures in the OC has been managed correctly, should there this time be an ability to appeal to ICG?

What I think we should do of course is to se whether due process has been used, and if it has, well, then that OC must, according to their process, be able to declare consensus. And not "appeal" to ICG.

...

...

In most cases it is probably the case that the question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or similar arrangements).

Really? This response seems to assume that the OC processes were perfect and no one would ever have cause to dispute them. I can't buy that.

Ok, this is a different and possibly third thing. And yes, I did for these three cases then simplify my response.

We given this have:

a. The process OC use is flawed and that is pointed out to us.

b. The process OC use is ok, but not applied correctly (i.e. violated by the OC themselves).

c. The process OC use is ok, applied correctly, but someone is not happy with the result.

I was, and you are right in that Milton, only talk about (c), while there are cases (a) and (b) as well.

Patrik

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

Folks commenting in this thread should look at what Manal proposed and subsequent responses: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-January/002749.html On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

Dear Kavouss,

I completely trust and want to leave it with Manal. I just wanted to explain what was in my head to Milton.

Patrik

...

On 30 jan 2015, at 20:35, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Patrik I think this is an issue to be taken care by Manal Leave it at her capable hand Kavouss

2015-01-30 17:14 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

On 30 jan 2015, at 06:52, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- Our job is to produce an acceptable document. Not fall into the trap of responding to questions that should in reality have been sent to each one of the operational communities.

This doesn't make any sense to me, Patrik.

Ok, I do think I express myself badly.

...

Most process complaints or concerns (and yes, Daniel, they ARE complaints) will have been expressed in the operational community but were not adequately answered or resolved, in the minds of the complainants. People send comments to us precisely because we are not the operational community.

The devil is in the details. An issue can very well has been taken care of in one of the OC but the individual can still send us a question about it. If the appeals procedures in the OC has been managed correctly, should there this time be an ability to appeal to ICG?

What I think we should do of course is to se whether due process has been used, and if it has, well, then that OC must, according to their process, be able to declare consensus. And not "appeal" to ICG.

...

...

In most cases it is probably the case that the question in reality already have been taken care of, according to whatever process that specific operational community have. Including appeals (or similar arrangements).

Really? This response seems to assume that the OC processes were perfect and no one would ever have cause to dispute them. I can't buy that.

Ok, this is a different and possibly third thing. And yes, I did for these three cases then simplify my response.

We given this have:

a. The process OC use is flawed and that is pointed out to us.

b. The process OC use is ok, but not applied correctly (i.e. violated by the OC themselves).

c. The process OC use is ok, applied correctly, but someone is not happy with the result.

I was, and you are right in that Milton, only talk about (c), while there are cases (a) and (b) as well.

Patrik

_______________________________________________ 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

I also agree with Manal proposal. What I do not support is that ICG acts as post office . I our charter we also mentioned other entities, individuals not members of operating 7 operational community. We need to remember long long discussions on that. Some people wanted to disregard the inclussiveness and just limits comments made to or by operating8 operational communities. That was rejected. Either we are inclussive or exclussive We need to be very careful. I have some problems with arguments launched by some colleagues and once again fully agree with Manasl and Jean-Jaques Kavouss 2015-01-29 12:15 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net>:

I agree with all Manal's comments so far on this thread. Jean-Jacques.

----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Jeudi 29 Janvier 2015 09:06:02 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

Many thanks Daniel for your responses .. Comments 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: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:24 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Handling process complaints

On 28.01.15 8:59 , Manal Ismail wrote:

...

Thanks Alissa for adding this to the agenda and to enlightening comments received so far ..It's crucial that we continue to be transparent consistent and predictable throughout the handling of all complaints ...

Having said that, I feel I'm not that clear about a few things and hope you wouldn't mind my below questions ..

Generally speaking:

1.Are we going to forward every complaint, formally, to the relevant Operational Community (OC)? Or depend on their accessibility on the web?

We should point the OCs to the forum and sugest that they monitor it and

pick up any comments relevant to them. This does not prevent us to point

out any comments we consider relevant. This way we are not in the business of filtering and yet we make sure nothing we consider relevant is overlooked by the OCs.

[MI]: I'm afraid this neither ensures consistency nor predictability .. Some comments may be left out completely if we follow a casual approach ... I believe we should handle all comments exactly the same regardless the end result ..

...

2.Are we going to reply to the complainer? how his/her complaint was considered? reasons for the ICG decision?

If a comment is addressed at the ICG explicitly we should consider it explicitly and decide how we act. In that case the procedure should be to acknowledge that we are dealing with it and to describe how we do that. E.g. "Thank you for your comment; the ICG will discuss it at their

meeting on .....".

If a comment is general or addressed to an OC we do not need to acknowledge it.

[MI]: Makes sense but I was under the impression that everything posted on the ICG forum is addressed to the ICG unless I have overlooked something ..

...

More specifically, I think we may run into one of the following

situations:

...

1.Complaints submitted for the first time directly to the ICG

(My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)

yes

...

2.Complaints submitted to the ICG by way of a complaint/escalation

(How to handle? forward formally to the relevant OC? expect an answer from the relevant OC? go through the mailing lists and dig the answer? ....)

We are not an arbitration body! The only thing such a comment could do is raise questions by *ourselves*. This involves a judgement call on our

part on whether we consider the comment justifying our action.

If we let go of that principle we are muddying the waters and open ourselves to all sorets of unpleasantness.

Yes, it means we have to make a decision on whether the comment has enough substance for our action. But we cannot avoid that in any case.

...

a.Complaints about the substance of the proposal

i.Something overlooked

(My understanding is that those will be forwarded to the relevant OC)

Yes.

...

ii.Something out of scope (How to handle? Who should decide?)

See above. If someone comments an OC proposal is mission creeping this should be addressed by the OC. They should say why it is in scope. If the conflict persists we have to make a decision on how to resolve that in the combined proposal.

[MI]: I posed this question to address a situation where one aspect is debated whether it's within the scope of a proposal or not .. Do we, as ICG, have to decide whether this aspect is needed for the final proposal? What if this aspect is addressed in one proposal but not the other(s)? Of course if all three believe it's out of scope of the final proposal this is something else ..

...

iii.A point of view that did not make it to the submitted proposal

(How to handle? decide whether it gained consensus, as defined by the OP? check whether the consensus process was followed? ...)

See above. The OC needs to defend their process. We have to evaluate the

proposal and the process. We can do that without passing explicit judgement each and every comment. Again: we are not an arbitration body that has to give an opinion to each specific case before it.

[MI]: Fair enough ..

...

b.Complaints about the process followed

is semantically the same as above

[MI]: I agree .. debating the substance would mostly (not always) lead to the debating the process followed .. For example, I think point (i) above is not related to the Process ..

...

i.Not happy with the process as defined by the OC (nothing we can do)

how is this different from above?

[MI]: Sorry for not being clear here .. I meant to say if someone, for example, doesn't like the idea of rough consensus, then tough luck, this is not the place to change the basis on which an operational community has agreed to work .. This may be an unneeded situation but I was just trying to exhaust all paths theoretically ..

...

ii.Process was not followed (How to prove? How to handle?)

again the same as above.

[MI]: Not sure what you mean by 'above' .. But yes, it relates to points (ii) & (iii) under 'Substance'.. But I don't think it related to point (i) under 'Process' ..

I'll try to synthesize in a separate message.

[MI]: Thanks again .. Much appreciated .. will be sending shortly to the list, taking into consideration comments made on the list and on the call ..

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