[Internal-cg] Steps for handling ICG forum comments ..

Alan Barrett 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
  relevant communities;
* 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 mailing list