[Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..
apb at cequrux.com
Thu Mar 19 08:52:51 UTC 2015
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
> Manal and I would really like to hear from more ICG members in
> order to close this.
>> Briefly, there have been two views put forward:
>> 1 - Kavouss (comment taken from the document in dropbox): "It
>> is not appropriate to leave the option to the operational
>> community to receive, forwarded copied of comments or express
>> preference to self monitor the ICG form .It is fundamental
>> that ICG decides on the matter abnd not to leave it to the
>> operational communities to choose receibving I or being
>> forwarded or selfmonitor. ICG is the sole and only instant
>> 7entitty which has the right to decide on the matter."
>> 2 - Joe (comment from email below): "I believe that the
>> consensus that emerged in the room had included providing the
>> option to communities to monitor the comments themselves, but
>> in such case we would ask them to confirm this in writing. I
>> think all were agreed that we should not decide the "value" of
>> comments addressed to community proposals as that was beyond
>> our remit, though we could use those comments to help formulate
>> our own questions…"
My understanding of the consensus in the room in Singapore was
closer to option 2 above:
* The ICG should not decide the "value" of comments;
* The ICG should ensure that all comments are forwarded to the
* Forwarding of comments to the communities may be done via a
"push" process, in which the ICG secretariat sends a message to
the community whenever a comment is received, or via a "pull" process
in which the community monitors the ICG forum.
* If a community wished to use a "pull" process, then that community
must send a written request to the ICG.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the Internal-cg