[Internal-cg] Consultation Comments

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Fri Aug 21 11:52:07 UTC 2015


One commenter that listed Home Depot as the organization was likely not 
responding on behalf of the company.  I'm not sure folks are focusing on 
these issues and it seems we all agree its to late to make any changes.

On 8/20/2015 8:37 PM, Narelle Clark wrote:
> I would think that re individuals vs organisations, there may be a case for identifying whether it is a singer (individual) or a choir (organisation).
>
>
>
> Narelle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff
> Sent: Monday, 17 August 2015 9:38 PM
> To: Kavouss Arasteh
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org; Russ Mundy
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consultation Comments
>
> I think we are concerned about the song in terms of the content of the comments, but correctly identifying the singers will help demonstrate whether there is community consensus... So I guess we need to pay attention to both what is said and who is saying it...
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All
>> Are we concerned about the "singer" or the "song"
>> Personally I am for the second one
>> Kavouss
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:55, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If we are asking who is represented by a submission, then I believe it is important to also ask whether the submission represents the person or the organisation named.  The question is for identification of each submission, and does not (and should not) imply that more importance is given to organisations than to individuals, or vice-versa.
>>>
>>> That said, I agree that it is too late to change the submission form, so we should leave it as is.
>>>
>>> Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 0:01, 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
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
>>> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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