I support this approach as well. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Lynn St.Amour [Lynn@lstamour.org] Received: Saturday, 07 Feb 2015, 7:50AM To: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Building on Commonalities .. [was: Handling process complaints] 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