[Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Wed Jul 15 22:33:11 UTC 2015

Ok, how is this?
--

CWG,

The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this, the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].

The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG.

Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

--

On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> I support Lynn's suggestion ..
> I think it's a good compromise that takes care of both valid concerns !!
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:35 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: Mary Uduma; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
> 
> Hi Alissa, Mary,
> 
> I support Mary's point and see Alissa's reasoning as well :-).   I also note, we should be careful about setting a precedent.
> 
> Could we "lean towards" Mary's suggestion, by making Mary's point in the first paragraph that it is the OC's responsibilities to respond as they feel appropriate and we hope they will.  And, then we ask the generic question(s).  In closing, we could say the ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the OC/CWG.   This leaves the responsibility with the OC, and hopefully avoids Alissa's concern.
> 
> Lynn
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mary,
>> 
>> Fair point. I was trying to be mindful of all of the information we have already received from the CWG. To me if we just forward the question and ask the CWG to respond, we are shifting the burden back to them to tell us to go read their charter again, go review the public comment analysis tool again, etc. I think we should at least acknowledge that we are aware of the charter text and so forth that speak to the issues raised by Richard's comments. But it's true that we could do that and still have our query to the CWG be generic.
>> 
>> Do others have strong feelings about this?
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> I personally prefer the original formation of the questions from Patrik. If the ICG already has a position or answers to Richards claims or points as being expressed by Alissa, there is no need for the letter.
>>> 
>>> I would have preferred that ICG just raise  these issues with CWG and allow the Chairs to provide responses as they deem appropriate, in line with the previous method the ICG handled the same Commenter's claim on the other two OCs' proposals.
>>> 
>>> Should the ICG be seen as proffering responses to its own questions  to or clarifications from the OCs? 
>>> 
>>> Just a personal view.
>>> 
>>> Mary Uduma
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:31 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Fine with me too, including Joe's suggestion ..
>>> Just one remark, can we replace 'claim' with some other word? Maybe 'point'?   
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> --Manal
>>> 
>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
>>> 
>>> Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
>>> On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> Draft letter text is below for your perusal.
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> Dear CWG,
>>> 
>>> The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard's claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information. 
>>> 
>>> Regarding his claim about the final proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given that further comments can always be provided whenever a document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a "final" document to be put out for public comment is an unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate.
>>> 
>>> Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regarding his claim about his specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration." We note that rationales were given and CWG consensus positions explained for each comment received during the public comment period that was not included in the proposal (including Richard's). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard's comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> NiRA Email Disclaimer
>>> This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee(s). Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender via email or phone number or telephone +234-8172004279 and delete this e-mail immediately. Do not disclose or use the email in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of NiRA. NiRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage(s) howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email and/or its attachment(s). NiRA does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of error(s), virus(es), interception or interference. For further information about NiRA please visit www.nira.org.ng.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150715/f8f08dd5/attachment.html>