[Internal-cg] Consultation Comments

[Alissa Cooper]

I’m not sure if Daniel’s follow-up comment ever made it to this list, but I am now wondering about the reverse situation, which is where it is unclear to us whether a commenter who inputs an organization is actually filing comments on behalf of that organization. We could have the organization field read:

Organization (if you are filing comments on behalf of an organization):

Thoughts? 

Alissa

On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:

> OK.  I'm fine with this.  We feel reasonably certain that they are aware that their voice will be considered as a lone voice and that we will have no idea what weight of knowledge their input will have behind it.  And complaints received when we announce the final version that their comments have not been taken into account will be treated as lone voices.
> 
> Which means that we will not say later, well I know that person and their voice counts for more than any of the people who have sent in comments who are essentially unknown to me (and who also didn't think to note anything about their experience or background in the area).
> 
> It will certainly make it easier to deal with any single-issue orchestrated campaigns.  I'll tear up my brand new concerned.internetuser at ntlworld.com e-mail address now!
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 06 August 2015 23:48
> To: Daniel Karrenberg
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments
> 
> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
>> "If you do not mention an organisation your comment will be treated as 
>> coming from an individual. If you mention the organisation your 
>> comment will be treated as coming from the organization."
> 
> Is this not obvious on its face? I mean, what other interpretation could we have of a blank organization field?
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> 
>> Anything else is too much open for interpretation.
>> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> On 6.08.15 20:26 , Martin Boyle wrote:
>>> I note that of the 10 comments received to date only two have 
>>> completed the "organisation" field.  Am I the only one to be 
>>> concerned by this lack of identification?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Could we adjust the form to make this field compulsory?  (It could be 
>>> completed as "individual" as the first submission has done.)  Or 
>>> should we warn that those who do not complete the organisation field 
>>> will be deemed to be filing personal comments?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm ok with people indicating:
>>> 
>>> *         Individual
>>> 
>>> *         Organisation nnn, but personal input
>>> 
>>> *         Organisation input
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am particularly concerned by an input from "community representative"
>>> which gives no indication of origins.  I am afraid I instinctively 
>>> discount such input - perhaps unfairly.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But perhaps my sore throat is making me particularly curmudgeonly 
>>> this evening.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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