[Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sat Apr 18 11:50:57 UTC 2015

This issue is not critical in the end, it is more a question of respect 
for commentators outside of the communities (they may not have 
understood the comment process or where best to address their comment) 
and process transparency than a game changer and we have spent beyond 
too many cycles on it. This will be my last post on the matter.

The issue is solely this:

When we get a comment related to an OC proposal we will always determine 
whether to act upon it or not.  If we decide to take an action related 
to it, whether in the form we received it or as the basis for an other 
question, the OCs must respond to our request, because a failure to 
respond will be part of our evaluation of the sufficiency of their process.

The question remains with what happens to the other comments we receive 
related to an OC proposal.  We can treat them as irrelevant or dead 
issues and do nothing.  Or we can can forward them to the OC as the 
group they were likely intended to reach.  I strongly favor the latter 
because it leads to transparency as espouses a "no wrong door" approach 
- wherever you comment it will be routed to the correct group. That 
group will have the need to determine whether and how to respond.  One 
driving force for me in this process is that what results be a 
representation of consensus and commentators throughout the process have 
their concerns addressed where possible.  The more concerns never 
reaching their target or never addressed, the greater likelihood that 
those comments may be resubmitted to NTIA as failures of the process to 
address community concerns.

The solution I proposed a the meeting, which had a favorable discussion 
at the time it was presented, was as follows  (order shifted to clarify 
concerns of this impacting our discretion plus elimination of the 
courtesy acknowledgement of receipt):

1.  We review comments to  determine if they raise issues on which the 
ICG should take action.  Where they do, we raise the issues as we see 
fit requesting the OC to reply us.

2.  In order to promote transparency of the process and to assure that 
opportunities to enhance understanding or to build community consensus 
are not squandered, we froward or make available to communities 
(excluding spam) the comments we receive that are relevant to their 
proposal to address as they feel appropriate.

That's it for me on this issue, I can accept whatever the group decides.



On 4/18/2015 1:28 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 16 apr 2015, at 10:39, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Pls read the text carefully
>> It says ICG may decides to send comments received from .... To OCs
>>  Consequently it is the ICG who examine the case and decides  on the 
>> beed or otherwise to respond
>> I do nit want to exclude ICG from the process and just leave it as an 
>> option to OCd to reply or not .
> First, as Alissa writes, I do not understand why we spend more time on 
> this.
> Secondly, what I wrote was that both ICG and OC can if they so wish 
> respond to the comments coming in. But they can also both ignore it.
> We, ICG, can be as many people wrote, be inspired by the comments and 
> use comments just like any kind of input as the basis for questions to 
> an OC.
> But neither OC not ICG has a mandatory obligation to respond to every 
> comment.
>    Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150418/507cbb2a/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list