Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can put this into action .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote:

Dear All ..

Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on ICG Forum..

I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore ..

I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and was too messy intrack changes ..

The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference..

I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of time ..

Hope to have this settled soon ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

Manal, thank you very much for driving this along. "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft based on Singapore Meeting 11 February 2015 - V.1" is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it. Daniel

Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion .. Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) .. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. Dear Manal, Thank you very much for the good work that was done. I was identified to be part of small group on the matter. There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED. Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary. However, I have not touched that . See attachment with revision marks Regards Kavouss 2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can put this into action .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote:

Dear All ..

Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on ICG Forum..

I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore ..

I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and was too messy intrack changes ..

The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference..

I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of time ..

Hope to have this settled soon ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

Manal, thank you very much for driving this along. "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft based on Singapore Meeting 11 February 2015 - V.1" is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion .. Happy to add it .. The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment .. Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Would this address your concern? Kind Regards --Manal From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. Thank you Kavouss and Manal. I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal is; " 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". If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments. My comments are as attached. Mary Uduma On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: ----- Forwarded Message ----- Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion .. Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) .. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. Dear Manal, Thank you very much for the good work that was done. I was identified to be part of small group on the matter. There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED. Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary. However, I have not touched that . See attachment with revision marks Regards Kavouss 2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can put this into action .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote:

Dear All ..

Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on ICG Forum..

I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore ..

I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and was too messy intrack changes ..

The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference..

I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of time ..

Hope to have this settled soon ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

Manal, thank you very much for driving this along. "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft based on Singapore Meeting 11 February 2015 - V.1" is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it. Daniel _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

Many thanks Mr. Arasteh .. So I take this as you'd rather keep your text and not go for what Mary suggested based on Joe's email, right? Kind regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:09 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Mary Uduma; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. Dear Manal, I sincerely appreciate-your valuable works. However, the changes that I made were the minimum that should be taken into account . I do not mind about other issues( superfluous text ) . Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 23 Feb 2015, at 08:13, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion .. Happy to add it .. The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment .. Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Would this address your concern? Kind Regards --Manal From: Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM To: Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. Thank you Kavouss and Manal. I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal is; " 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". If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments. My comments are as attached. Mary Uduma On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: ----- Forwarded Message ----- Dear Mr. Arasteh .. Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion .. Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) .. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. Dear Manal, Thank you very much for the good work that was done. I was identified to be part of small group on the matter. There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED. Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary. However, I have not touched that . See attachment with revision marks Regards Kavouss 2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can put this into action .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments .. On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote: > Dear All .. > > Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on > ICG Forum.. > > I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore .. > > I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and > was too messy intrack changes .. > > The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference.. > > I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the > smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of time .. > > Hope to have this settled soon .. > > Kind Regards > > --Manal Manal, thank you very much for driving this along. "Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft based on Singapore Meeting 11 February 2015 - V.1" is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it. Daniel _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 believe that the consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate our own questions... Joe On 2/23/2015 5:16 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:

Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was:Handling process complaints]

Many thanks Mr. Arasteh ..

So I take this as you'd rather keep your text and not go for what Mary suggested based on Joe's email, right?

Kind regards

--Manal

*From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 12:09 PM *To:* Manal Ismail *Cc:* Mary Uduma; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..

Dear Manal,

I sincerely appreciate-your valuable works.

However, the changes that I made were the minimum that should be taken into account .

I do not mind about other issues( superfluous text ) .

Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Feb 2015, at 08:13, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> wrote:

Many thanks Mary for the constructive suggestion ..

Happy to add it ..

The reason I didn't was that I assumed that a reply of any written form (not necessarily a statement) would be considered a commitment ..

Dear Mr. Arasteh ..

Would this address your concern?

Kind Regards

--Manal

*From:*Mary Uduma [mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 2:12 AM *To:* Manal Ismail; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..

Thank you Kavouss and Manal.

I think what was omitted in Joe's formulations as reproduced by Manal is;

" 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".

If the provision of a statement from the OC is added to Manal's opening statement, I think it would take care of Kavuoss' comments.

My comments are as attached.

Mary Uduma

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:34 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> wrote:

----- Forwarded Message -----

Dear Mr. Arasteh ..

Many thanks for your comments which matches my initial suggestion ..

Yet I thought a different way forward was agreed at the meeting as a compromise, which was helpfully summarized by Joe in his email to the list (attached for your convenience) ..

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I’m flexible with either ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

*From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:05 PM *To:* Manal Ismail *Cc:* Daniel Karrenberg; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..

Dear Manal,

Thank you very much for the good work that was done.

I was identified to be part of small group on the matter.

There are some inconsistencies that I HAVE EDITED.

Moreover, there are overlapping and superflous paragraphs that while is harmless but do not seem necessary.

However, I have not touched that .

See attachment with revision marks

Regards

Kavouss

2015-02-22 16:28 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>:

Many thanks Daniel for your response and your cooperation .. In case of no other comments, appreciate if our chair and co-chairs can put this into action ..

Kind Regards --Manal

-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:23 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..

On 17.02.15 13:06 , Manal Ismail wrote: > Dear All .. > > Please find attached stepsfor handling community comments received on > ICG Forum.. > > I hope this accuratelyreflectsthe discussion we had in Singapore .. > > I have createda new document as it describes a different approach and > was too messy intrack changes .. > > The old draft is still on Dropbox, if you wishto reference.. > > I have to clarify that this has not been discussed yet among the > smaller group agreed in Singapore, but is being shared for the sake of time .. > > Hope to have this settled soon .. > > Kind Regards > > --Manal

Manal,

thank you very much for driving this along.

"Handling community comments submitted to the ICG Forum Discussion Draft based on Singapore Meeting 11 February 2015 - V.1"

is excellent and I recommend that we adopt it.

Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:45 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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> >> [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 <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

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

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

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