RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + action items

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Are the other SO/ACs being "disrespected" by the current process?   Or
do they feel that their input should take priority over "just another
public comment?"  I ask because I sincerely do not know how they feel
about this...

My approach with feedback within PDP WGs has always been to be "source
agnostic" with respect to comments / input.  If the substance of the
comment offered new material, or corrected the factual basis of a WG's
discussions, or illustrated an important point of GNSO procedure or law,
then those comments merited mention and response in the report. 
Sometimes the WG would also reach out to submissions that were vague or
unclear in order to gather additional details.

Maybe these cases are something we could capture and build in to the
recommendation / process.  But treating input differently based solely
upon its source is, to me, a step in the wrong direction.

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document +
action items
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 03, 2011 11:38 am
To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>



On 3 Feb 2011, at 11:42, Marika Konings wrote:

> • Recommendation # 21 - One WT member also suggested that the recommendation 
> should include that a response needs to be provided to an SO/AC that submits 
> comments. It was agreed to circulate the proposed language on the mailing 
> list to obtain further input on this issue. The proposed language is as 
> follows: “Comments from ACs and SOs should receive a direct response from the 
> WG”. (WG Members are encouraged to provide feedback on this proposed 
> language.)
> 


As the WT member who made this recommendation, it is for me a matter of
respect for the AC and So that prompts the recommendation..

If an AC or SO goes to the extent of sending a communique or other
directed comment to the WG, it is sort of dismissive to just treat it as
if it were a comment in the community comments.

I am recommending a relationship between the GNSO, and its working
groups, of outreach and respectful response. I am not recommending that
these comment be treated as special in that they have greater influence,
but rather am recommending that there is a respectful way to treat the
GNSO's peers.

thanks

a.