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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I said, it is not a matter of taking their input more seriously.  Everyones 
input should be taken seriously and 'source agnosticism' is a good thing.

What I am saying is that:

a. we should make direct outreach to them, for comment, not just let them read 
the community announcement.  And by and large we already do that, we just need 
to codify this.

b. if they go to an effort to send the WG a comment, we should respond in 
detail explaining its disposition.  This is pretty much the same content that 
would go into the document.  The only extra bureaucratization if the chair 
putting it in a doc or an email adding a polite chapeau and sending it along.

For too long the GNSO has been the king of its silo and has treated the other 
SO/AC with a degree of dismissal and superiority.  I just think it is wise in 
the age of the AOC and it commitment to earlier cross pollination to have some 
tangible evidence of having taken things into account.  That is the pragmatic 
side of such politeness.

a.


On 3 Feb 2011, at 12:47, James M. Bladel wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>