Comment/Reply Cycles Page Description

This second topic concerns incorporating both comments and replies into the Public Comment Forum. INACTIVE

Background: Public Comment solicitations normally run for a specified period (e.g., 21 or 30 days) and, unless extended, are immediately closed to further community input. It is not infrequent that some contributors wait until the last day before submitting their comments. As a result, it is not possible, practically, to react or respond to previously submitted input, especially if they are posted on or shortly before the ending date/time.

The ATRT wondered whether the Public Comment process might be advantaged by having a separate and distinct period reserved "to address and rebut arguments raised in opposing parties comments."

Scenarios to Consider

While answering the questions under this topic, please keep the following options in mind:

Option 1: Static Comment/Reply Periods

Thinking about the current Forum software environment which requires comments to be submitted via email, Staff drafted a recommendation in which each comment period would run for a minimum of 30 days, followed by a minimum 15-day reply cycle. Once the 1st 30-day period ended, the community would be asked not to submit any new comments, but respond (via email) to comments previously posted.

Option 2: Dynamic Comment/Reply Forum

Another option might be to operate the Public Comment Forum within a technology that supports interactive or threaded comments and replies such as this Wiki environment. There could still be a separate period at the end of a 30-day initial cycle (e.g., another two weeks) during which contributors could react to previously submitted comments, especially those inserted in the final couple of days. Practically, there may be no way to prevent a fresh new submission during this reply cycle; however, community members would be encouraged not to add new submissions, but only reply to comments previously posted. In ICANN's Wiki, powered by Confluence, the terms "Add" and "Reply" are very clearly labeled and easy to differentiate.

Note: In either scenario, the final report of Forum exchanges would take into consideration both the comment and reply submissions.

The following Questions appear on separate pages under this main Topic:

Contributions to Topic 2: Comment/Reply Cycles

UserComments
Ken Bour 5
Don Blumenthal 4
Filiz Yilmaz 1
Frederic Guillemaut 7
Jonathan Zuck 6
Sokol Haxhiu 5



Created by:  Ken Bour

  • No labels

8 Comments

  1. Jonathan Zuck

    I think the opportunity to reply is interesting and the community would find that process useful. I would suggest, just implementing this as policy rather than updating tech for it. The truly practical advantages of switching to a wiki of some sort for it are minimal. They would allow for a threaded discussions to take place but I'm not sure that's really the goal. Expend the energy elsewhere.

    What's more interesting I think is find a way to give commenters some kind of indication that the comments have been considered. To some extent, the public have the same conerns as the GAC. There's a summary which means that at least one staffer gave them all a cursory read but it's never clear where it goes from there.

    Just my initial thoughts.

    J

    1. Ken Bour

      Jonathan:

      We were hoping that you would address each of the four questions on child pages to this one.  Would you mind moving your comment (above) to Question 1-Configuration as well as providing your insights to the other questions?

      Thanks,

      Ken

  2. Frederic Guillemaut

    Hello

    Option 1 is easy and straight forward.

    Comments, then reply.

    Going into a wiki reply mode would be confusing.

    However it is important that people are warned and told about the start and beginning of the periods (especially the ones who commented).

    Frederic

    1. Ken Bour

      Frederic:

      I sent out the share link to this master page, but the Questions are actually on child pages. Would you mind moving your comment (above) to Question 1-Configuration as well as providing your insights to the other questions?

      Thanks,

      Ken

      1. Frederic Guillemaut

        I do not have access to any child page yet.

        I will try later.

        Frederic

        1. Ken Bour

          MY BAD!!!! (sad)

          I forgot that I had page restrictions on the children pages as well as the master for Topic 2 (which I released).  

          I apologize...the structure should now be open to your comments. 

          Ken

          1. Jonathan Zuck

            Hey, my "general" comments on process (which is largely about people feeling heard) don't fit any of these questions so I don't think it makes sense to repost, right?

            Jonathan

            1. Ken Bour

              It's fine to leave here, Jonathan.

              The point you raised (above) about the disposition of the community comments may be out-of-scope in this forum, but it is something we are taking into consideration within the broader scope of the Public Comments project. 

              Rob Hoggarth and I developed a template that we call a "Public Comment Issues Tracking Checklist" which has been circulated to ICANN Staff. The form's purpose is to document the issues, concerns, suggestions, recommendations, ideas, etc., raised in the Public Comments Forum and track their disposition. I uploaded an example from a real solicitation (New Constituency Recognition Process) so that you can see how we utilized the format.

              We haven't worked out all of the logistics and mechanics yet (e.g., should it be mandatory as part of every Public Comments final report), but the idea seems to be gaining traction. It does provide a clean way of showing how each substantive comment was ultimately resolved. 

              Ken

              Attachment