[Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 09:41:18 UTC 2015
Dear Daniel
Dear Joseph
Thanks for not opposing
What you raised would be internal to us
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 11:00, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> This procedure looks to me like one of these just workable compromises.
> However, it is not important enough to spend more time on it. So I will
> not oppose it.
>
> The chair will have to support the secretariat in their decisions what
> is spam and how to make specific comments available to which
> communities. I suspect that some of these decisions will not be
> straightforward. and we will receive some criticism for them no matter
> what. I wish we could have avoided this work and these decisions by
> omitting (2b).
>
> We will also have to clarify to the communities that the request for
> updates in (3) is not intended as a request to address each and every
> comment nor to produce statistics on how many comments they responded to
> etc etc.
>
> (2a) is the important part.
>
> Daniel
>
>> On 22.04.15 4:02 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> 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
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list