[Internal-cg] Consultation Comments

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Wed Aug 12 14:11:53 UTC 2015


I think we are in the position that we have launched the open consultation, with a certain set of questions. Changing them will make it difficult to evaluate the response. Did they fetch the instructions before or after we changed them?

So even if we have discovered a possible "issue" I think we have to face the fact that we are where we are, and simply evaluate the responses given what people write. Including the fact they might have misunderstood what we ask for.

I.e. regardless of what changes we might think is needed, I will be very conservative to make changes as the consultation is live.

   Patrik

On 12 Aug 2015, at 16:01, Russ Mundy wrote:

> I’ve had a concern about this discussion that I wasn’t sure if I should raise it or not but here it is (for what it’s worth):
>
> As an individual ICG member, I really don’t want to venture into trying to evaluate the importance (or unimportance) of an organization or individual when considering the comments we receive during our public comment period.  It seems to me that the most important aspect of any comment we receive should be the content of the comment including the arguments the commenter makes in support of the comment.
>
> If we somehow want to give more “weight” to comments from those claiming to represent organizations than comments we receive from individuals, it seems to me that we are then opening ourselves up to a bunch of other criticisms, e.g., was the person submitting the comment for an organization authorized to submit the comment for the organization?, or is a well written, well substantiated comment from an individual of less importance than a poorly substantiated comment from an organization?, or do we even know (or should we care) if the person submitting the comment is concealing their real identity?
>
> Since we’ve already entered the public comment period, my preference would be to not make any changes to the submission page so that everyone looking at the page from the beginning to the end of the period sees the same page. Although we don’t currently infer that comments from an organization are more important than comments from individuals, some of the suggested changes on this thread might bring such an inference.  If we do feel that a change to the page is needed, I think Alissa’s suggestion below is the best one I’ve seen.
>
> Hopefully, we all agree with the idea that each of the comments we receive must be evaluated on the merits of the comment rather than who submitted the comment.
>
> Russ M
>
> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150812/79f78151/attachment.asc>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list