[Ws2-jurisdiction] Farzaneh's Question

[Greg Shatan]

All,

I've consulted with the Co-Chairs and here are our thoughts in response to
Farzaneh's question.

Farzaneh has asked what we will do if we receive responses about ICANN
jurisdiction that do not directly relate to the questions but state
problems that ICANN jurisdiction raises.  Of course, this question is hard
to answer in the abstract, without seeing actual responses.

Postel's Law says "Be liberal in what you accept."  In this case, that
means we should not have a rigid "purity test" for submissions.  If a
sincere attempt to answer the questions strays beyond a direct response
(e.g., suggesting a variation on the actual experience recounted), we
shouldn't automatically ignore it.

However, Postel's Law also says one should be "conservative in what you
send." So, those sending submissions should be responding directly to the
questions.  We should encourage responsive submissions and discourage
non-responsive submissions. The goal of the survey is to receive responses
to the questionnaire.  If this becomes an open mailbox, that runs counter
to our goal, and cancels out all of the work done to decide the parameters
of the questionnaire.  The subgroup had good reason to ask the questions it
did rather than more open-ended or speculative questions.

A submission that does not even attempt to respond to the questions is a
more difficult case than one that merely goes outside the lines.  In a
sense, it is an abuse of the process.  However, if the response is one that
is relevant to our work and is within the mandate of the group, we should
probably consider it, to the extent it is within our mandate. (That might
change if we receive a number of "non-responsive" submissions, and it
appears that respondents are "gaming the system.") In any event, such a
response could be put forth by a member of the subgroup during our
discussions, assuming it's relevant to work being done at the time.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:
>
> "Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction
> that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that
> ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna
> discuss it within the mandate of the group…"
>
> It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a
> well-considered response.  It is also a question that raises several other
> questions, which also deserve responses.
>
> The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a
> coordinated response will be more useful to the group.  We will get back
> to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in
> time for today's CCWG-Plenary call.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All, As you recall, I did ask Greg to provide a formal reply to
>> Farzaneh Question which deserved to be replied.
>> I hope Grec , in his presentation would refer to the matter an reply, if
>> his response would not be convincing  I will raise  the matter and request
>> the CO-CHAIRS to formally respond in a satisfactory manner.
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170120/c4dd5b0a/attachment-0001.html>