[Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Apr 22 02:02:58 UTC 2015


Colleagues:

I have posted a clean reformatted proposed solution for the consensus 
building comments in drop box and attach it to this email for your 
convenience.

Best-

Joe

On 4/18/2015 10:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Joe,
> I fully agree with your way forward.
> May you kindly edit the former draft in re ordering the text and 
> deleting the element of giving option to OCs to elect to reply or not 
> and replace it by your text to which I fully agree
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-04-18 14:38 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg 
> <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>>:
>
>     Many thanks Mr. Arasteh for your trust ..
>
>     Unfortunately I’m traveling this coming week and have an intense
>     week of meetings ..
>
>     I won’t be able to dedicate time for this issue, nor will I be
>     able to join the ICG upcoming call, as indicated earlier ..
>
>     Appreciate being excused ..
>
>     Kind regards
>
>     --Manal
>
>     *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
>     <mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss
>     Arasteh
>     *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 1:46 PM
>     *To:* Alissa Cooper
>     *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>
>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments
>     handling
>
>     Alissa
>
>     Thank you for the message
>
>     Pls note that from the very beginning some if us wanted to give
>     the choice ti OCs to reply or not
>
>     Some others including me were if the opinion that such choice
>     should exclusively be available to ICG to determine how to react.
>     i.e. Reply directly to the comments received which usually would
>     not be the case in practical circumstances or ICG decides ti send
>     the comments to OC concerned and asks that entity to reply and
>     copy the reply to ICG
>
>     This is fundamental and crucial as it is part or duty to oversight
>     that process as indicated in our charter.
>
>     We can not compromise on any provisions of the charter.
>
>     Thank you for your kind understanding and careful attention.
>
>     I suggest Nanal who dealt with this issue kindly continue to find
>     a solution.
>
>      Regards
>
>     Ksvouss
>
>
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>     On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in
>     <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>
>         If any of you who have agreed on edits could edit the document
>         directly and post an update to the list and dropbox, that
>         would be great. Personally I don’t fully understand what
>         changes you all have agreed.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Alissa
>
>         On Apr 16, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>         <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>
>
>         Dear Alissa,
>
>         Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that
>         we worked for several  months  ago in which there was no
>          mention  of so-called “ROUGHT CONSENSUS “which is practiced
>         in your own community and not in ICG .That rough or soft
>         consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that
>         consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such
>         document which established the basis of our works and
>         completed after more than 300 e-email message be ignored
>
>         We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and
>         agreement.
>
>         My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and
>         you need to take that into account
>
>         I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with
>         what we have decided before . You can not ignor all those
>         agreement and just refer to “ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was
>         totally disagreed from the very beginning
>
>         We need to be practical and comply with our charter.
>
>         Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it
>         requires reply, the reply should be give. If it needs to be
>         sent to OCs ofor further analysis and reply ,once so decided
>         by ICG that action should be done.
>
>         The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs .
>
>         Comments received should not left as an optional process by
>         OCs they must be treated properly.
>
>         Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to
>         answer the questions
>
>         Then what is the role of the ICG?
>
>         Community expects a proper action from ICG,
>
>         The issue is not so difficult
>
>         Pls do not make a mass of that.
>
>         Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits
>
>         Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to
>         converge and not to diverge
>
>         This is an important matter left from Singapore
>
>         Regards
>
>         Kavouss
>
>         2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff
>         <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>>:
>
>         Kavouss:
>
>         We are in agreement except for one nuance.  When it comes to
>         ICG I agree our actions are in our discretion and answers must
>         come to us.
>
>          As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and
>         transparency; if a person sends us a question related to an OC
>         propsal which we believe has been answered in the OC propsals
>         or which we do not see as worthy of follow up- excluding the
>         spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question on an
>         OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they
>         need to answer or explain their  actions further to optimize
>         community consensus.  We need maximum transparency and
>         consensus across all of our efforts...
>
>         I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to
>         forward questions that should have better been addressed to
>         the OC...
>
>         Joe
>
>         Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com
>         <http://www.nitrodesk.com/>)
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>
>         From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>         <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
>         Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM
>         To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
>         <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>]
>         CC: paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se> [paf at frobbit.se
>         <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>]; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>         <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> [internal-cg at ianacg.org
>         <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>]
>
>         Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments
>         handling
>
>         Dear Joseph
>         Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or
>         not a comment received needs to be replied and not all comments.
>         Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs
>         Regards
>         Kavouss
>
>         Sent from my iPhone
>
>         > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff
>         <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
>         <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>         >
>         > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment.
>         >
>         > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown
>         (www.nitrodesk.com <http://www.nitrodesk.com/>)
>         >
>         > -----Original Message-----
>         >
>         > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>]
>         > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM
>         > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
>         <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>]
>         > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>         [internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>]
>         > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community
>         comments handling
>         >
>         >
>         >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff
>         <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
>         <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> Choices:
>         >>
>         >> a.  We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our
>         own follow up and it inspires us to ask the same or related
>         question(s) to the proposal drafters. This we have the ability
>         to do at all times.
>         >> b.  As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our
>         process or the joint proposal, we are not in a position to
>         properly answer the question.  As such we could forward the
>         question to the correct community, on the chance that the
>         asker of the question may not have also addressed the community.
>         >> c.  Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the
>         questions we receive will be available online.  If a community
>         commits to keeping watch for relevant comments then we don't
>         have to worry about forwarding comments.
>         >>
>         >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities
>         under a.  b and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest
>         transparency and assurance that comments are routed to those
>         groups best able to address them.  It takes a no wrong door
>         approach to comments and helps assure that those not familiar
>         with the consultation process are also able to get their
>         questions heard.
>         >
>         >
>         > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks
>         that we can at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically
>         because of b. and c. And b. issues might be picked up by the
>         OC themselves. Either because it was adressed to them as well
>         as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.).
>         >
>         > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might
>         ask/forward questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the
>         list and act themselves on whatever is sent in.
>         >
>         > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_
>         comment coming in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_
>         comment to the OC's for action.
>         >
>         >   Patrik
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Internal-cg mailing list
>         > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>         > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Internal-cg mailing list
>         Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
>         http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150421/8b1cb324/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Community Comments Handling-21Apr15-KA-MU-JHAclean-reformatted.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150421/8b1cb324/attachment.docx>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list